Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-23-02097/USCOURTS-ca10-23-02097-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raydell Billy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

RAYDELL BILLY, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 23-2097 

(D.C. No. 1:22-CR-00884-KWR-1) 

(D. N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before TYMKOVICH, SEYMOUR, and EID, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Raydell Billy was charged and convicted by a jury for assault with a dangerous 

weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 113(a)(3). The district court instructed the jury 

on the elements and definitions of assault with a dangerous weapon, but during 

deliberations the jury sent a note requesting clarification about the meaning of the term 

“assault.” After hearing from the parties and over Mr. Billy’s objection, the district court 

provided the jury with a definition of assault based on Tenth Circuit Criminal Pattern 

Jury Instruction 2.09. Thereafter, the jury convicted Mr. Billy of assault with a dangerous 

*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 17, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 23-2097 Document: 83-1 Date Filed: 12/17/2024 Page: 1
2 

weapon. His timely appeal seeks to have his conviction vacated, arguing the district court 

abused its discretion when it provided the jury with the definition of assault. 

I. Background 

On April 11, 2022, Mr. Billy, his older sister Raynorma Billy (“Raynorma”), 

and his uncle Alvin White, drove to the house of Mr. Billy’s younger sister Raymona 

Billy (“Raymona”) to confront Raymona’s boyfriend, Erwin Williams, for allegedly 

abusing her. Upon arriving Raynorma knocked on the door and she, Mr. White, and 

Mr. Billy entered the house when Raymona opened the door. 

Raynorma found Mr. Williams in the bedroom, and Mr. Billy soon joined her. 

Raynorma began hitting Mr. Williams in the face with her fists. The altercation 

scared Raymona’s five-year-old son, who started to cry. Raymona took the boy into 

the living room, and Raynorma followed. At some point, Mr. White joined Mr. 

Williams and Mr. Billy in the bedroom. 

Mr. White and Mr. Williams hit each other. Mr. Billy, holding a gun, 

demanded Mr. Williams’s wallet and car keys. When Mr. Williams refused, Mr. Billy 

used his gun to strike Mr. Williams on the back of his head. He then left. 

A grand jury indicted Mr. Billy, Mr. White, and Raynorma on one count of 

conspiracy, one count of assault with a dangerous weapon, and aiding and abetting. 

Mr. White and Raynorma pled guilty. Thereafter the government filed a superseding 

indictment against Mr. Billy to add a charge of discharging a firearm during and in 

furtherance of a crime of violence. The government dismissed the conspiracy charge 

and proceeded to trial on one count of assault with a dangerous weapon in violation 

Appellate Case: 23-2097 Document: 83-1 Date Filed: 12/17/2024 Page: 2
3 

of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3), and one count of discharging a firearm during and in 

furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 

924(c)(1)(C)(i). 

At the close of evidence, the district court instructed the jury. It specifically 

instructed as follows on the elements required for conviction for assault with a 

dangerous weapon. 

INSTRUCTION 11 

The defendant is charged in Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment 

with assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

Sections 1153 and 113(a)(3). To find the defendant guilty of this 

Crime, you must be convinced the government has proved each 

of the following beyond a reasonable doubt. 

First, the defendant intentionally assaulted John Doe; 

[S]econd, the assault was done with the use of a dangerous weapon; 

[T]hird, the assault was done with the intent to commit bodily harm; 

[F]ourth, the defendant is an Indian; and, 

[F]ifth, the incident occurred in Indian Country in the District of 

New Mexico. 

The term “deadly or dangerous weapon” includes any object capable 

of inflicting death or serious bodily injury. For such a weapon to have 

been used, the Government must prove that the defendant not only 

possessed the weapon, but that the defendant intentionally displayed 

it in some manner while forcibly assaulting the victim. 

The term “bodily injury” means an injury that is painful and obvious 

or is of a type for which medical attention ordinarily would be sought. 

Supp. Rec., vol. II (transcripts) at 166–67 (emphasis added). 

Appellate Case: 23-2097 Document: 83-1 Date Filed: 12/17/2024 Page: 3
4 

After deliberating for a few hours, the jury sent the following note: “In Count 

#1, does the ‘assault’ refer to the brandishing of the weapon or specifically the action 

of pistol-whipping or both?” Id. at 189. The district court suggested using the 

definition of assault from the Tenth Circuit Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 2.09 

and heard argument from the parties. 

The government argued for an additional instruction, and Mr. Billy contended 

that the Instructions given were sufficient. The district court ultimately provided the 

following answer to the jury: “Assault means any intentional attempt or threat to 

inflict injury upon someone else, when coupled with an apparent present ability to do 

so.” Id. at 192. The government had no objection. Although Mr. Billy admitted it 

seemed “reasonable,” he nonetheless maintained his objection to providing any new 

instruction to the jury and said that he wanted to preserve the issue for appeal. Id. at 

191. The district court overruled the objection while noting that it was “preserved for 

the record.” Id. at 192. The jury was then given the clarifying statement. 

The next day, the jury found Mr. Billy guilty of assault with a dangerous 

weapon. The district court sentenced him to imprisonment for ninety months and 

supervised release for three years. This timely appeal followed. 

II. Analysis 

When reviewing jury instructions, we review the district court’s decision to 

give a particular jury instruction for abuse of discretion, while reviewing the 

instructions as a whole de novo to determine whether they accurately informed the 

jury of the governing law. United States v. Sharp, 749 F.3d 1267, 1280 (10th Cir. 

Appellate Case: 23-2097 Document: 83-1 Date Filed: 12/17/2024 Page: 4
5 

2014) (quoting United States v. Toledo, 739 F.3d 562, 567 (10th Cir. 2014)). “A 

district court’s actions in responding to questions from the jury, as well as 

supplemental instructions given to the jury, are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” 

Allen v. Minnstar, Inc., 97 F.3d 1365, 1370 (10th Cir. 1996). “A district court abuses 

its discretion when its decision is ‘arbitrary, capricious or whimsical’ or falls outside 

‘the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.” United States v. OleaMonarez, 908 F.3d 636, 639 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Mares, 441 

F.3d 1152, 1156 (10th Cir. 2006)).1

To find an abuse of discretion, the district court’s actions must have “fall[en] 

outside ‘the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.’” Id. A district judge 

not only has the authority, but also the “duty to guide the jury toward an intelligent 

understanding of the legal and factual issues . . . particularly when the jury asks a 

question revealing its confusion over the central issue of a case.” Id. (internal 

citations omitted). The jury’s question strongly suggested it was struggling to 

understand whether Mr. Billy’s conduct constituted an assault, which was a threshold 

issue in determining whether he had committed assault with a dangerous weapon. 

Moreover, the district court provided a modified definition from the Tenth 

Circuit’s pattern jury instructions. Contrary to Mr. Billy’s contention, the district 

1

 The government contends that we should review for plain error, arguing that 

Mr. Billy failed to properly preserve the issue. See United States v. Olea-Monarez, 

908 F.3d 636, 639 (10th Cir. 2018). Because we conclude there was no error, it 

makes no difference whether we apply plain error or abuse of discretion as the 

standard. 

Appellate Case: 23-2097 Document: 83-1 Date Filed: 12/17/2024 Page: 5
6 

court’s answer did not impermissibly comment on the facts. Providing such an 

official, vetted answer does not exceed the bounds of permissible choice. 

Mr. Billy argues providing the jury with the definition of simple assault, 

without emphasizing the additional elements needed to constitute assault with a 

dangerous weapon, ran the risk of confusing the jury. Aplt. Br. at 15. We disagree 

and conclude that the district court acted well within its discretion in providing a 

legally accurate answer to the jury’s question, particularly given the prior Instruction 

11 on the elements required to find Mr. Billy guilty. 

III. Conclusion 

Mr. Billy has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by 

providing the jury with a definition of assault. Accordingly, we affirm. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 23-2097 Document: 83-1 Date Filed: 12/17/2024 Page: 6