Alpha, et al v. Hooper, et al

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 15, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 05-40457
_______________________
DIANA ALPHA, Mother and Next Friend of Minor Children;
COLEEN ANDERSON, Surviving Minor Child;
CLAYTON LYNN ANDERSON, Surviving Minor Child;
ESTATE OF ANDERSON, Estate of Jerry Lynn Anderson;
TOMMY D. ANDERSON; REBECCA MULL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
MATT HOOPER, Deputy Sheriff in Hopkins County;
CHARLES BUTCH ADAMS, Sheriff of Hopkins County;
HOPKINS COUNTY, TX,
Defendants-Appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
No. 5:03-CV-02
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The appellants, various relatives of decedent Jerry Lynn
Anderson, appeal from the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of appellees Hopkins County, Texas, and Sheriff
Charles Adams, as well as three evidentiary decisions made by the
district court in the course of trial against Deputy Sheriff Matt
Hooper. Hooper shot and killed Anderson as Anderson was attempting
to evade arrest by running down Hooper in his truck.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
After carefully considering the briefs, oral argument,
and pertinent parts of the record, we conclude that the appellants’
objections to the evidentiary decisions made by the district court
are without merit, and that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in making its rulings.
Only one of the challenged rulings merits comment. The
appellants argue that the district court erred in admitting
evidence that Anderson possessed and was under the influence of
methamphetamine at the time of his death. A plastic bag containing
methamphetamine was found with Anderson subsequent to the shooting,
and an autopsy revealed that Anderson had ingested methamphetamine.
Appellants contend that the methamphetamine evidence was completely
irrelevant to the issue whether Hooper used excessive force, since
Hooper could not have conclusively determined that Anderson
possessed or had ingested methamphetamine until after Anderson’s
death. Alternatively, the appellants argue that the methampheta-
mine evidence should have been excluded because its probative
value, if any, was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial
impact. See FED. R. EVID. 403.
The first argument is plainly insufficient: Hooper’s
mental state and his impressions of Anderson’s condition at the
time of the shooting were directly at issue during the trial
because Hooper raised a defense of qualified immunity, claiming in
part that his actions were objectively reasonable under the
circumstances. Hooper testified that he believed Anderson to be

-- 2 of 3 --

1 Deputy Hooper had followed Anderson’s truck from a house where he
believed methamphetamine was being stored and where he had purchased
methamphetamine during a previous undercover investigation.
3
under the influence of methamphetamine immediately before the
shooting — an impression based on his actual glimpses of Anderson’s
face just before the shooting; on Anderson’s erratic driving; and
on Anderson’s connection to a known drug house.1 Consequently, the
evidence that Anderson both possessed and was under the influence
of methamphetamine at the time of his death was highly relevant as
it tended to corroborate Hooper’s testimony about his own percep-
tion of events. In short, the district court’s decision to admit
the methamphetamine evidence does not appear to have been error at
all, and does not qualify as an abuse of discretion.
Further, because Hooper was found by a jury not to have
violated the decedent’s constitutional rights, there is no basis
for liability on the part of Hopkins County and Adams. See City of
Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 798-99, 106 S. Ct. 1571,
1572-73 (1986) (holding that, because the jury had found that the
officer had not violated the victim’s constitutional rights, there
was no basis for liability on the part of the city and members of
its police commission).
Accordingly, the decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --