United States v. McIninch , 36 F. App'x 93 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 01-4962
    STEPHEN AUBREY MCININCH,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge.
    (CR-01-20)
    Submitted: April 25, 2002
    Decided: June 3, 2002
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Dennis P. Brumberg, Paul A. Dull, BRUMBERG, MACKEY &
    WALL, P.L.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee,
    United States Attorney, Thomas J. Bondurant, Jr., Chief, Criminal
    Division, Tara J. Mooney, Third Year Law Intern, Roanoke, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    2                     UNITED STATES v. MCININCH
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Stephen Aubrey McIninch was found guilty following a jury trial
    of two counts of maliciously damaging, or attempting to damage, by
    means of a fire, a building used in or affecting interstate commerce,
    in violation of 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 844
    (i) (West 2000). Finding no revers-
    ible error, we affirm.
    On appeal, McIninch first contends that the district court erred in
    denying his motions for a judgment of acquittal on both counts. A
    reviewing court must uphold a jury’s verdict if the evidence, when
    viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, is sufficient for
    a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the
    crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United States, 
    315 U.S. 60
    , 80 (1942). We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that sub-
    stantial evidence supports McIninch’s convictions.
    McIninch also claims that the district court abused its discretion in
    admitting a videotape recreation of a fire occurring at Pebble Creek
    apartments. Recognizing the potential prejudicial effects of such rec-
    reations, we have "established a requirement that video taped evi-
    dence purporting to recreate events at issue must be substantially
    similar to the actual events to be admissible." Hinkle v. City of
    Clarksburg, 
    81 F.3d 416
    , 425 (4th Cir. 1996). McIninch contends that
    the videotape was not substantially similar to the actual event because
    the light used to simulate the fire was not flickering and the apartment
    lights were on during the taping. Even assuming, without deciding,
    that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the videotape,
    we find that any resulting error was harmless given the overwhelming
    evidence against McIninch presented at trial. See Talkington v. Atria
    Reclamelucifers Fabrieken BV, 
    152 F.3d 254
    , 266 (4th Cir. 1998)
    (finding that any resulting error from district court’s decision to admit
    a videotape of a burn test in a products liability case was harmless).
    UNITED STATES v. MCININCH                     3
    Accordingly, we affirm McIninch’s convictions and sentence. We
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
    ment would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-4962

Citation Numbers: 36 F. App'x 93

Judges: Gregory, Luttig, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 6/3/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023