Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03647/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03647-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles James Jones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3647

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Charles James Jones

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: October 20, 2016

 Filed: December 2, 2016

____________

Before MURPHY, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Shalonda Clark and defendant CharlesJones lived together on the White Earth

Indian Reservation. Their house burned down while they were both intoxicated and

Clark died. Jones was thereafter convicted by a jury of second degree murder. The

Appellate Case: 15-3647 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2016 Entry ID: 4475136 
district court sentenced him to 324 months imprisonment. Jones now appeals the

1

district court's exclusion of expert testimony and photographs, the admission of

several statements he made to police officers, and the application of a vulnerable

victim sentencing enhancement. We affirm.

I.

Shalonda Clark and CharlesJones had a history of domestic violence and were

addicted to methamphetamine. Eventually they were reduced to living in their living

room with an electric stove for heat. In December 2013 Jones acquired a bottle of

butalbital, a migraine drug for which he had no prescription. After he and Clark took

a large number of these pills, a fire started in the house they shared and spread

rapidly. Clark died on the living room couch.

After the fire had started, Jones walked to the nearby home of the Sip family

from where a family member called the police. When an officer responded, he was

invited inside the Sip house where he found Jones in the living room. He asked Jones

how the fire had started and where Clark was at the time. Jones told the officer that

Clark had been sleeping on the couch and that he had thrown a burning blanket over

her. He explained that he was "sick of the shit she put me through" and that she had

"been nothing but cruel to me." Jones then walked into the kitchen and tried to stab

himself. Two officers were able to stop him and put him in handcuffs. While he was

led to their police car Jones told them, "You finally fucking got me." When an officer

asked him what he meant, Jones responded, "That's all you're getting. I hope I get the

max."

The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Minnesota. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3647 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2016 Entry ID: 4475136 
The next day officers tried to question Jones after reading him his Miranda

rights. They told him that Clark was dead and they needed to talk. Jones responded

that he had nothing to say and that he wanted to end the interview. Nevertheless, he

went on to volunteer that "she's a wicked bitch and that's it." Jones later

unsuccessfully moved to suppress these statements after he had been charged with

second degree murder.

Fire investigatorR. Paul Bieber appeared at trial as an expert witnessfor Jones. 

Bieber's initial disclosure had stated that he would testify about the area where the

fire started, whether it had been intentionally lit, and whether the government expert's

investigation had been influenced by cognitive bias. After the government moved to

exclude Bieber's testimony, the defense submitted two amended and more detailed

disclosures. The district court decided to admit Bieber's testimony about the origin

and cause of the fire, but not about the potential cognitive bias of the government's

expert which had not been mentioned in either of Bieber's amended disclosures. 

Jones was convicted of second degree murder and was sentenced to 324 months

imprisonment after the district court applied a vulnerable victimenhancement. Jones

appeals.

II.

Jones argues that the district court committed reversible error by strictly

limiting Beiber's testimony to the opinions he had provided in his final expert

disclosure under FederalRule ofCriminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(C). The parties dispute

the standard of review. The government argues that since Jones had not provided an

offer of proof for Bieber's excluded testimony, that exclusion cannot be reviewed or

at least only for plain error.

The record shows, however, that Jones did make an offer of proof on Bieber's

excluded testimony and thus preserved the issue for appellate review. Jones argues

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-3647 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/02/2016 Entry ID: 4475136 
that we should review de novo the exclusion of his expert testimony because it denied

himthe right to present a defense. Our longstanding precedent makes clear, however,

that the standard is abuse of discretion. See United States v. Coutentos, 651 F.3d

809, 820 (8th Cir. 2011). Rule 16(b)(1)(C) required Jones to disclose a written

summary of the testimonyBieber intended to offer, describing Bieber's "opinions, the

bases and reasons for those opinions, and [his] qualifications." Fed. R. Crim. P.

16(b)(1)(C). If a party fails to make an adequate expert disclosure, the district court

may "prohibit that party from introducing the undisclosed evidence." Fed. R. Crim.

P. 16(d)(2). 

Bieber provided his first expert disclosure to the government on February 13,

2015. In that disclosure, Bieber stated that he would testify about what caused the

fire, where it originated, whether it had been started intentionally, and "the presence

and influence of domain-irrelevant information" such as cognitive bias which might

have affected the government expert's investigation. After the government moved to

preclude Bieber's testimony, he provided an amended disclosure on February 24,

which was the day before the pretrial conference. In that disclosure, Bieber stated

that he planned to testify that the cause and specific origin of the fire could not be

determined scientifically and that any "conclusions asto the intentional or accidental

nature of the fire are not based on an examination or analysis of physical, fire-scene

evidence, nor are they based on scientific, engineering or technical expertise." 

After the trial began on March 2, the district court announced that it would only

allow Bieber to testify to the opinions outlined in his amended disclosure if he were

to provide more detail about the reasons underlying those opinions. After Bieber's

second amended disclosure was submitted on March 4, he was able to testify to his

opinions about the origin and cause of the fire, but not about alleged deficiencies in

the government expert's investigation, cognitive bias, or other possible causes of the

fire. Jones argues on appeal that the district court committed reversible error by

excluding these areas from the expert's testimony.

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-3647 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/02/2016 Entry ID: 4475136 
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding

Bieber's proposed testimony about deficiencies in the government expert's

investigation and his cognitive bias. As the court pointed out, Bieber's abbreviated

description of these issues had not disclosed the reasons for his opinions as required

by Rule 16(b)(1)(C). The defense then chose not to supplement his disclosures. The

court did not abuse its discretion by excluding this expert testimony which had not

been properly disclosed. See United States v. Holmes, 670 F.3d 586, 599 (4th Cir.

2012). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by excluding Bieber's proposed

testimony about other possible causes of the fire. Bieber stated that he had intended

to testify that it was impossible to identify the specific cause and origin of the fire. 

Because of his limited disclosures the district court did not abuse its discretion by

limiting his testimony, see Holmes, 670 F.3d at 599, or prohibiting the introduction

of photographs about alternate possible causes of the fire. See United States v.

Thetford, 806 F.3d 442, 446 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review).2

III.

Jones argues that the district court should have suppressed three statements he 3

made to police officers. On an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, factual

findings are reviewed for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. United States v.

Allen, 713 F.3d 382, 386 (8th Cir. 2013). The Fifth Amendment requires suspects to

be informed of their Miranda rights before any custodial interrogation. United States

v. Sanchez, 676 F.3d 627, 630 (8th Cir. 2012). Interrogation, for Miranda purposes,

Jones argues for the first time in his reply brief that there had been no need to 2

disclose testimony before it was offered to rebut that of the government's expert. We

generally "do not consider argumentsraised for the first time in a reply brief," United

States v. Picardi, 739 F.3d 1118, 1123 n.3 (8th Cir. 2014), and we decline to do so

here.

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the

3

District of Minnesota. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-3647 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/02/2016 Entry ID: 4475136 
means "express questioning" and "words or conduct that officers should know [are]

'reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response fromthe suspect.'" United States

v. Briones, 390 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Rhode Island v. Innis, 446

U.S. 291, 301 (1980)). If officersfail to inform a suspect of his rights, "any statement

gained from the violation" is generally inadmissible during the government's case in

chief. Sanchez, 676 F.3d at 630. 

Jones first challenges the district court's decision not to suppress his initial

statementsto investigator Luke Sweere while his house was burning and Clark's body

had not yet been discovered. When Sweere responded to the fire, witnesses told him

that Jones was at the Sip house. Sweere went there, a resident invited him in, and he

found Jones sitting on the living room couch. Jones was covered in soot and his hair

was singed. He smelled of smoke and was dressed in clothes that appeared to be

burned. Sweere asked where Clark was, and Jones answered that she was on the

couch. When asked how the fire had started, Jones stated that "I started it." Sweere

then asked him how and why he had started the fire, whether he and Clark had been

using drugs, whether Clark had been awake when the fire started, and what she had

done that day. Sweere noticed thatJones appeared to be under the influence of drugs,

and Jones confirmed that. Nonetheless, Jones appeared alert, and he answered

questions coherently. 

The district court did not err in admitting Jones' statements. Most of them were

admissible under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule. That exception

permits a suspect's answer to a question to be admitted into evidence even if he had

not first been informed of his Miranda rights so long as the purpose of the officer's

question was to ensure public safety, not merely to elicit evidence. United States v.

Everman, 528 F.3d 570, 572 (8th Cir. 2008). An objective standard is used to decide

whether an officer's question was meant to aid public safety. Id. In the situation here,

most of Sweere's questions served two public safety purposes. Clark wasstill missing

when Sweere asked about where she was, and the fire was still burning when Sweere

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-3647 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/02/2016 Entry ID: 4475136 
asked Jones how it started. These were public safety concerns, and the questions

were "not designed solely to solicit testimonial evidence." Id. Thus, the responses

by Jones were admissible. See id. Moreover, any error in the admission of the

remaining statements would have been harmless. For example, when Sweere asked

why Jones had started the fire, he replied that Clark had been "nothing but cruel" to

him. Given the extent of the trial evidence, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that

this remark would not have had a significant influence on the jury's verdict. Any

error in its admission was therefore harmless. See United States v. Farlee, 757 F.3d

810, 820 (8th Cir. 2014).

Jones next argues that all of his statements should have been suppressed

because at the time he made them he had been intoxicated by a prescription drug. 

Intoxication does "not automatically render a confession involuntary; rather, the test

is whether th[is] mental impairment[] caused the defendant's will to be overborne." 

United States v. Casal, 915 F.2d 1225, 1229 (8th Cir. 1990). The district court found

that even though Jones had been intoxicated, his will had not been overborne and his

statements were voluntary. In the audio recording of his interview with Sweere,

Jones spoke slowly and appeared to answer some questions unresponsively, but

officers testified that he had been coherent during his confession. Given this record,

we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in determining that his "will was . . .

not overborne." 

Jones also argues that the district court should have suppressed statements he

made after being handcuffed. Jones told investigator Daniel Skoog, "You finally

fucking got me." When Skoog asked him what he meant, Jones responded, "That's

all you're getting. I hope I get the max." Jones' first statement was not made in

response to an officer's question and was admissible. See United States v. Chipps,

410 F.3d 438, 445 (8th Cir. 2005). Jones' second statement also was admissible

because "[a]n officer's request for clarification of a spontaneous statement" does

generally not amount to interrogation. Id.

-7-

Appellate Case: 15-3647 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/02/2016 Entry ID: 4475136 
Jones finally argues that the district court should have suppressed a comment

that he later made in jail after invoking his right to remain silent. Officers must stop

questioning if a suspect clearly and consistently expresses a desire to remain silent. 

See United States v. Ferrer-Montoya, 483 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). 

When special agent Daniel Baumann tried to question Jones in a jail interview room

the day after the fire, Baumann read Jones his Miranda rights. Jones replied, "I ain't

got shit to say to you, okay?" Baumann explained that he wanted to talk because

Clark was dead and Jones had made incriminating statements during the fire. Jones

responded that he did not know why he had made those statements. Baumann then

told Jones he would send him back to his cell if he did not want to talk. Jones replied

that was what he wanted, and Baumann said, "Okay." Then, Jones added, "She's a

wicked bitch and that's it." 

Jones was clearly in custody at the time of that last statement so the only

question is whether it wasspontaneous or the product of unlawful interrogation. The

district court found that it had been unprovoked and that Baumann had not violated

Jones' rights because he stopped his questioning as soon as the latter clearly said that

he wanted to end the interview. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err

in determining that Jones' final statement was spontaneous and unprovoked. 

Baumann had made clear that the interview was over and did not ask any question to

elicit the statement which was not the product of interrogation. The district court did

not err in admitting it.

IV.

At sentencing, the district court found Clark was a vulnerable victimand added

two levelsto Jones' guideline offense level. The enhancement for a vulnerable victim

is appropriate if "the defendant knew orshould have known" that he was a vulnerable

victim. U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1). A victim may be vulnerable because of "age,

physical or mental condition," or he is "otherwise particularly susceptible to the

-8-

Appellate Case: 15-3647 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/02/2016 Entry ID: 4475136 
criminal conduct." U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1 cmt. n.2. We review the district court's

interpretation ofthe guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United

States v. Betone, 636 F.3d 384, 388 (8th Cir. 2011). 

Jones argues that the enhancement should not apply because the district court

should not have admitted or considered his intoxicated statements, should have heard

additional testimony from Bieber, and should have realized that he was too

intoxicated to know that Clark was vulnerable. We conclude that the district court

did not err in applying the enhancement. The court heard evidence showing that

Clark had been asleep when the fire started and thatJones would have known thatshe

was impaired because he had supplied her with drugs. Based on Jones' later

interactions with police officers, it was not clear error for the district court to find that

he was coherent enough to know that Clark had been vulnerable because of her

mental condition.

V.

For these reasons we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-9-

Appellate Case: 15-3647 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/02/2016 Entry ID: 4475136