Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-4381
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00372-CMH-1)
Argued:
Decided:
parental
kidnapping
in
violation
of
the
about
her
travel
plans;
and
(2)
by
denying
two
courts
witnesses,
exclusion
because
excluded testimony.
Liu
of
Lius
failed
to
statements
proffer
to
the
the
content
various
of
the
Therefore, we
Tianjin, China, and she moved to the United States around 2000.
In 2007, Liu married William Jerome Ruifrok III, a United States
citizen, in Loudoun County, Virginia.
WLR traveled
between China and the United States several times between 2010
separated
in
November
2013.
After
several
months
of
entered
in
May
2014
by
the
Juvenile
and
Domestic
The Final
visitation
also
outside
rights
required
that
United
States
the
every
weekend.
either
parent
obtain
the
The
Final
traveling
express
Custody
with
WLR
written
and
with
WLR.
requests
Ultimately,
in
July
2014,
Liu
and
stopped
Ruifrok
responding
was
unable
to
to
August
28,
2014,
Liu
purchased
tickets
from
United
Airlines (United) for Liu, Lius mother, and WLR to travel from
Washington
China.
Dulles
They
International
were
scheduled
Airport
to
depart
(Dulles)
one
to
week
Beijing,
later,
on
ticket
for
herself
and
one-way
tickets
for
WLR
and
Lius
mother.
Liu did not notify Ruifrok about her travel plans with WLR
until after arriving at Dulles on the morning of the scheduled
flight.
At
11:00
a.m.
on
September
4,
2014,
Liu
informed
Ruifrok by email that she had learned last midnight that her
grandmother
was
dying
and,
therefore,
she
and
WLR
needed
to
will
responded,
and
20
pick
him
minutes
up.
before
An
the
hour
plane
after
Ruifrok
departed,
Liu
replied:
I already booked the tickets for him.
We have to
leave today. Its too urgent! Ill notice you when I
know when we can be back.
Because I have to replace
his birth certificate too.
Ruifrok notified the Dulles airport police that Liu was
violating a court order by leaving the country with WLR.
airport
police
contacted
the
Federal
Bureau
of
The
Investigation
being
notified
of
the
situation,
United
personnel
About
5:15 p.m., the flight landed at Dulles, where Liu, WLR, and
Lius mother were escorted off the aircraft.
Liu
as
she
disembarked.
At
the
time
of
arrest,
Lius
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
1204.
The
IPKCA
trial,
the
18 U.S.C. 1204(a).
government
argued
that
Liu
intentionally
parental
rights.
Liu
presented
evidence
that
she
statements
were
inadmissible
6
hearsay.
Lius
counsel
substance
district
of
court
the
testimony
ruled
that
sought
Outtrim
to
be
could
admitted.
testify
counsel
pursued
different
line
of
The
about
Lius
In response,
questioning
that
permitted Outtrim to testify that Liu had not made any effort to
keep her travel plans a secret, and that she had left most of
her personal property and WLRs clothes at Outtrims home.
Lius
counsel
also
asked
Danica
Hu,
Lius
real
estate
testimony
that
Hu
continued
to
assist
Liu
through
court
Liu
sustained
made
to
the
Zhao
governments
about
her
After the
objection
travel
to
plans,
any
Zhao
could
not
be
performed
7
from
China.
Again,
Lius
counsel
did
not
proffer
for
the
record
the
content
of
the
excluded testimony.
Liu also attempted to elicit testimony from FBI Special
Agent
Tonya
airplane
Sturgill,
returned
who
to
spoke
Dulles.
to
At
Lius
that
mother
time,
after
Lius
the
mother
Ruifroks
consent.
At
the
close
of
evidence,
Liu
prove
that
Lius
specific
purpose
or
significant
that
required,
more
but
than
argued
that
de
minimis
inserting
showing
a
of
intent
significant
was
purpose
district
instructions.
court
rejected
Lius
proposed
jury
the jury that the government was required to prove: (1) that Liu
8
of
parental
rights.
With
respect
to
the
first
and
did
accident.
that
of
Finally,
act
because
of
ignorance,
mistake,
or
instructed
custody
not
the
parental
the
child,
district
rights
which
were
includes
court
instructed
rights
to
physical
visitation
rights.
the
jury
that
the
the
defendant
knowingly
. . .
broke
the
law.
The
and
the
courts
previous
definition
of
the
term
knowingly, and added that Liu did not have to know that her
actions
may
intended
to
be
in
violate
violation
a
of
criminal
criminal
law.
law
After
or
ten
that
she
minutes
of
Liu
first
contends
discretion
in
excluding
concerning
statements
that
the
testimony
she
made
district
from
about
the
her
court
abused
various
travel
its
witnesses
plans.
Liu
Rules
of
Evidence.
Similarly,
Liu
argues
that
her
this
general
rule
admission
of
An exception
statement
of
also Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 296
(1892).
The
determination
whether
statement
qualifies
for
then-existing
state
of
mind
are
admissible,
but
mind
are
inadmissible. 1
Stephen
A.
Saltzburg
et
al.,
11
the
fact-sensitive
inquiry
necessary
for
be
admitted,
unless
that
substance
is
apparent
from
the
The purpose
Inc., 616 F.3d 134, 15152 (2d Cir. 2010); Perkins v. Silver
Mountain Sports Club & Spa, LLC, 557 F.3d 1141, 1147 (10th Cir.
2009); Polack v. Commr of Internal Revenue, 366 F.3d 608, 612
(8th
Cir.
2004).
Second,
the
offer
of
proof
permits
the
the
admission.
substantial
rights
of
the
party
seeking
its
F.3d at 612.
In the present case, Liu failed to proffer the specific
statements that she sought to introduce into evidence, and the
context in which the statements arose did not render apparent
the substance of the excluded evidence.
12
detail
to
determine
whether
Lius
statements
to
Outtrim, Hu, and Zhao were admissible under the state of mind
exception.
whether
the
statements
were
cumulative
or
unfairly
to
the
critical
issue
of
Lius
intent
to
obstruct
Accordingly,
questioned
Lius
mother,
who
explained
that
she
past
intent
or
memories.
Rule
803(3)
explicitly
excludes
that
district
the
court
did
not
Accordingly, we conclude
abuse
its
discretion
by
the
courts
jury
instructions
for
abuse
of
discretion.
United States v. Sonmez, 777 F.3d 684, 688 (4th Cir. 2015).
In
rejecting
proposed
jury
instructions,
defendant
must
the
defendants
defense.
14
Id.
(internal
quotation
obstruction
of
parental
rights
must
have
been
the
its
instruction
discretion
by
declining
regarding
the
IPKCAs
rights. 2
See
rights
defined
is
18
U.S.C.
in
the
to
definition
1204(b)(2).
statute
give
as
The
meaning
her
preferred
of
parental
term
parental
the
right
to
15
v.
Fazal-Ur-Raheman-Fazal,
355
F.3d
40,
45
(1st
Cir.
WLR
every
weekend.
Liu
asked
the
district
court
to
denied
Lius
request
to
give
this
The district
additional
jury
instruction.
Instead,
the
district
court
instructed
the
jury
that
description
of
parental
rights
was
Thus, Lius
substantially
F.3d at 688.
Sonmez, 777
to the jury that the parental rights at issue were only physical
visitation
rights.
Accordingly,
16
the
district
court
did
not
Liu
argues that the government was required to prove that she acted
with a significant purpose of obstructing Ruifroks visitation
rights,
and
that
the
district
courts
instructions
did
not
instruction,
the
than
court
giving
Lius
instructed
proposed
the
jury
jury
that
the
government
must
district
defendant
court
acted
elaborated
deliberately
that
with
you
the
must
purpose
find
of
that
the
interfering
By instructing
the
substantially
jury
covered
in
the
government
this
manner,
content
was
of
required
the
Lius
to
district
proposed
prove
that
court
instruction
Liu
intended
that
the
by
her
17
actions
to
interfere
with
did
not
abuse
Ruifroks
parental
rights.
See
discretion
in
refusing
Lius
We therefore affirm
18