Holt

United States v. Holt

Good Law
318 F. App'x 595
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 11, 2009No. 08-30061California770 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*597 MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Marilee Holt challenges her conviction and sentence for involuntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1112 (a) and 1153 on the grounds that the district court erred in denying her motions to suppress blood draw evidence and to exclude that evidence at trial, and in excluding her proffered expert opinion evidence concerning the victim’s mental health history. She also argues that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction and that the sentence imposed by the district court is unreasonable. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. The district court’s finding that Holt had voluntarily consented to having her blood drawn as part of the investigation of a fatal vehicle-pedestrian collision involving her Dodge Caravan was not clearly erroneous, and the district court did not err in denying Holt’s motion to suppress that evidence. See United States v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir.1994); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973).

2. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in- admitting the results of the blood draw (viz., that approximately…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.