United States v. Jackson

MEMORANDUM *

Lawrence Dean Jackson, Jr. appeals his conviction and 120-month sentence for maiming under 18 U.S.C. §§ 114 and 1153(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

First, it was not plain error for the district court to admit Dr. Reynolds’ testimony regarding William Gone’s disfigurement. Dr. Reynolds did not opine that Jackson had the specific intent to maim or that he did not act in self defense. Nor did “the ultimate inference or conclusion” of specific intent “necessarily follow from [Dr. Reynolds’] testimony.” United States v. Younger, 398 F.3d 1179, 1189 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Second, the district court did not err in denying Jackson’s Fed.R.Crim.P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson possessed the specific intent to maim or disfigure. See United States v. Ruiz-Lopez, 234 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir.2001). The government presented photographs apparently showing that Gone’s injuries were…