Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02080/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02080-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wallace Frank
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

' ' 

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

vs. ) No. 89-2080 

) 

WALLACE FRANK, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

FI LED 

United Sr:ncs Coun of A ppca]s 

Tench Cfr::uit 

APR 171990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. 88-440 C) 

Stephen P. Mccue, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Presiliano Torrez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Albuquerque, New. 

Mexico, (William L. Lutz, U.S. Attorney, Robert J. Baca, Assistant 

U.S. Attorney) for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge, MCWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, 

and BRIMMER, Chief District Judge.* 

BRIMMER, District Judge. 

* The Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, Chief Judge, of the United 

States District Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-2080 Document: 01019583504 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 1 
Appellant Wallace Frank appeals from criminal convictions in 

the District Court for the District of New Mexico. After a jury 

trial before Judge Campos, Frank was convicted on two separate 

counts of Crime on an Indian Reservation: Aggravated Sexual Abuse 

in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 1153 and 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (1). 

Frank has filed this appeal, contending insufficient evidence 

exists to support a finding that the ev~nts at issue in Count I 

occurred in Indian country and secondly, that the trial court erred 

in refusing to strike two jurors for cause. The court affirms the 

district court's findings and determinations on both issues. 

Background 

Frank was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual abuse 

involving three different victims. All three sexual assaults are 

alleged to have occurred near Shiprock, New Mexico, on Indian 

Reservation land. Trial was held January 9-11, 1989, on Counts I 

and II. Count III was dismissed at the outset of trial because 

the alleged victim-witness failed to appear to testify. The jury 

heard the evidence and returned a verdict of guilty on the two 

remaining counts. 

After voir dire, 

number 25 for cause. 

Frank moved to strike jurors number 3 and 

During the trial court's voir dire, 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-2080 Document: 01019583504 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 2 
prospective juror number 25, Richard Mather, indicated he was a 

personal friend of the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark 

Jarrnie. Mather indicated he and Jarrnie had been friends for four 

or five years, had visited with Jarrnie infrequently; and had been 

to the Jarrnie's home. Jarrnie had never been to Mather's home. 

The trial court questioned Mather further as follows: 

THE COURT: Is there anything about 

acquaintanceship with Mr. Jarrnie which you feel 

have a tendency to influence your decision in the 

case? 

MR. MATHER: No. 

your 

might 

Frank 

THE COURT: Do.you feel, sincerely, that you can set 

this acquaintanceship aside and decide tne case, in which 

Mr. Jarrnie is involved, on the evidence presented in this 

courtroom and the instructions which I will give you at 

the end of the case? · 

MR. MATHER: Yes. 

Record on Appeal Vol. III, at 30-31. 

During voir dire by counsel for the defendant, Mather 

indicated he was one of the founding members of Mother's Against 

Drunk Driving (MADD). When questioned, he stated this also would 

not affect his ability to serve as a juror. 

The parties and attorneys retired to chambers after voir dire 

to select the jury. The court excused certain jurors, and 

proceeded to hear challenges for cause from the parties. 

Defense counsel challenged juror number 3, Connie Ferguson. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-2080 Document: 01019583504 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 3 
On the back of her juror questionnaire, Ferguson had written: 

My greatest objection to serving that far away from home 

is the fact that I might have to stay alone in a motel 

for one or several nights. That thought troubles me 

greatly. One only has to read the paper or watch the 

news for one day, to realize that a woman alone is a 

sitting duck, and could easily be a victim of a violent 

crime. This is a great fear of mine. 

Id., at 91. Frank argued Ferguson would be prejudiced against his 

case. Judge Campos denied the challenge for cause insisting 

defense counsel should have developed his concerns over Ferguson's 

statements during voir dire thereby allowing the court to discuss 

it with her. 

Frank then challenged juror number 25, Richard Mather, due to 

his personal relationship with the prosecutor and his membership 

in MADD. The.court denied this challenge as well. Consequently, 

Frank used his peremptory challenges to strike jurors number 3, 

Ferguson, and number 25, Mather, from the panel. 

With a jury finally selected, the government proceeded with 

its case. The government's first witness was Jayne Jackson, the 

alleged victim in Count I of the indictment. Jackson is a 17 year 

old Indian who on March 22, 1988, was walking home from high school 

when she was offered a ride from Frank. Once in Frank's truck, 

Frank introduced himself as "Wallace" and asked Jackson if she'd 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-2080 Document: 01019583504 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 4 
accompany Frank to a nearby convenience/gas store that was just 

off the Navajo Reservation. Jackson agreed. 

Jackson testified that after purchasing gas, Frank drove her 

back towards Shiprock. Using a diagram of the area, Jackson 

detailed her truck ride with Frank for the jury. She testified 

that Frank left the main road onto a dirt road, traveling in a 

northerly direction towards Horseshoe canyon Road located on the 

Navajo Reservation. She told the jury that Frank continued 

traveling on several other dirt roads, still proceeding in a 

northerly direction. Frank then stopped in an isolated area and 

raped her. Jackson pointed to a diagram of the area, to the spot 

marked "D" where she alleged the rape occurred. This location is 

well within the Navajo Reservation, approximately five miles to 

the nearest exterior boundary. 

During Jackson's cross-examination, she admitted that it was 

getting dark at the time the rape occurred and she wasn't sure 

exactly where it happened. She also admitted she did not prepare 

the diagram. On redirect she stated "I wasn't sure where it 

happened, but I just told him [Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Investigator Keith Joey] that it happened--that it happened there 

where he took me, and I took him back." Id. Vol. IV, at 183-84. 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-2080 Document: 01019583504 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 5 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Criminal Investigator Keith 

Joey was assigned to investigate the incident and determine if it 

occurred on Indian land. Joey asked Jackson, on the day after the 

rape, to show him where it occurred. Joey states that Jackson 

pointed out to him where she and Frank drove. Upon arriving at the 

location where Jackson claimed the rape took place, Joey found tire 

tracks which he matched to the tires from Frank's truck. He did 

not make casts of the tracks, but measured the width and took note 

of the visible wear marks, and matched these details to the tires 

on Frank's truck, finding strong similarities. He admitted his 

comparison was not scientific. He also acknowledged that the 

ground at the scene of the rape was hard and little impression was 

visible. Furthermore, he conceded that Frank's tires were not 

unique and there was no way to determine how long the tracks he saw 

had been there. 

At the conclusion of the government's case, Frank moved for 

acquittal. The motion stated: 

The government has failed to prove through the testimony 

of Jayne Jackson that the events at issue in Count I 

occurred within the exterior boundaries of the Navajo 

Reservation. 

Id. Vol. v, at 335. The court denied Frank's motion for acquittal. 

At the conclusion of the case, the jury convicted Frank on both 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-2080 Document: 01019583504 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 6 
counts of aggravated sexual abuse as charged in the indictment. 

Discussion 

Frank claims the trial court erred in denying his motion for 

acquittal. A review of the court's denial requires we consider, 

in the light most favorable to the prosecution, all the evidence 

presented at trial and any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. 

United states v. Troutman, 814 F.2d 1428, 1455 (10th Cir. 1987). 

Defendant's motion will be denied if "any rational trier of fact 

could have found ·the essential elements of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) 

(emphasis deleted). 

United states District Courts have jurisdiction over 

enumerated major crimes committed by an Indian within Indian 

Country. 18 u.s.c. § 1153. Appellant Frank contends the evidence 

presented to prove that the aggravated sexual assault charged in 

Count I occurred on Indian land is insufficient. Frank argues that 

the evidence presented by the victim, Jayne Jackson, and BIA 

investigator Joey, was inadequate to meet the government's burden 

of beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The testimony given by Jackson was confusing and oftentimes 

conflicting. She admitted that it was getting dark at the time of 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-2080 Document: 01019583504 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 7 
the rape and that she wasn't exactly sure where she was. During 

redirect, Jackson testified that she told BIA investigator Joey 

that the rape happened, "that it happened there where he took me, 

and I took him back." Record on Appeal Vol. IV, at 183-84. Her 

statement seems conflicting as to whether Joey took her to a spot 

he selected or if she directed him there. 

The court believes, however, that a rational trier of fact 

could find that Jackson was indicating that she directed Joey back 

to the scene of the rape and that Joey, based upon her directions, 

took her there. Jackson's statements regarding the location of the 

rape were corroborated by Joey's unscientific comparison of tire 

tracks found at the scene of the .rape and the tires on Frank's 

truck. Jackson and Joey both pointed to this location on a map of 

the area as point "D." BIA Natural Resource Manager, Jerry Thomas, 

verified that point "D" was within the boundaries of the Navajo 

Indian Reservation. Accordingly, the evidence presented was 

sufficient from which a rational trier of fact could find beyond 

a reasonable doubt that the rape charged in Count I occurred on 

Indian land. The trial court's decision to deny Frank's motion for 

acquittal is affirmed. 

Frank's second issue on appeal is the trial court's denial of 

8 

Appellate Case: 89-2080 Document: 01019583504 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 8 
his request to strike jurors number 3 and 25 for cause. Absent 

abuse of discretion, the trial court's determination of a juror's 

competency to sit will not be disturbed. United States v. 

Berryhill, 880 F.2d 275, 279 (10th Cir. 1989); United States v. 

Baker, 638 F.2d 198, 201 (10th Cir. 1980). 

Juror number 3, Connie Ferguson, wrote on the back of her 

questionnaire that she was nervous about staying in a hotel by 

herself, fearing she might become a victim of violence. The trial 

court and counsel for the prosecution and defense did not question 

Ferguson further regarding her fears during voir dire. In chambers 

following the voir dire, Frank's counsel challenged Ferguson for 

cause. The trial court denied, stating defense counsel should have 

developed the matter during voir dire. 

The trial court has the duty in a criminal case to properly 

voir dire prospective jurors to ensure the sixth Amendment 

guarantee of an impartial jury is met. Baker, 638 F.2d at 200. 

Our review of the trial record indicates that the trial court 

conducted extensive voir dire. He asked whether any of the 

prospective jurors or members of their family had been the victims 

of criminal conduct or behavior, whether they had any feelings in 

favor or against the United States or the defendant, and whether 

9 

Appellate Case: 89-2080 Document: 01019583504 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 9 
they could render a fair and impartial verdict. Record on Appeal 

Vol. III, at 39-44, 59, and 68. Ferguson did not speak up any of 

these times to indicate that she could not render a fair and 

impartial verdict. Furthermore, her statement on the back of the 

questionnaire, while indicating nervousness about staying in 

hotels, does not express any predisposition or opinion about the 

defendant's case. There is little, if any, evidence to 

demonstrate that Ferguson could not render a fair and impartial 

verdict in this case. The trial court's decision to deny the 

challenge to juror number 3 for cause, accordingly, is affirmed. 

The trial court's denial of Frank's request to challenge juror 

number 25 for cause also must be affirmed. Juror number 2 5 , 

Richard Mather, acknowledged being an acquaintance of the 

prosecuting attorney, Jarmie, and a founding member of MADD. The 

trial court questioned Mather further, asking Mather if his 

relationship with prosecutor Jarmie would tend to influence his 

decision in the Frank case. Mather responded "No." Id., at 30. 

The court also inquired whether Mather could decide the case solely 

on the evidence presented and instructions given to which Mather 

said "Yes." Id. , at 3 0-31. There is also no indication that 

Mather's role in MADD would have influenced him in this case. See 

10 

Appellate Case: 89-2080 Document: 01019583504 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 10 
id., at 80. 

Accordingly, the convictions are AFFIRMED. 

11 

Appellate Case: 89-2080 Document: 01019583504 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 11