Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03157/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03157-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Warren Blue Bird
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3157

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of South Dakota.

*

Warren Blue Bird, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2005

Filed: February 22, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The Government charged Warren Blue Bird with assault with a dangerous

weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian country arising from

an attack on Leonard Martinez, Jr. in January 2004. The prosecution filed a pretrial

motion in limine asking the district court*

 to prohibit the introduction of evidence that

in September 2003, Martinez had beaten Blue Bird with a garden hoe inflicting

several scull fractures. The incident was investigated, but Blue Bird did not

cooperate with authorities and Martinez was not prosecuted. On the morning of Blue

Appellate Case: 04-3157 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2005 Entry ID: 1869931 
-2-

Bird’s trial, the district court preliminarily granted the Government’s motion, but

stated that when Blue Bird sought to introduce the evidence during the trial, he

should approach the court for a definitive ruling. Trial trans. at 4. 

 Testimony at trial showed that on the night before the January attack, Blue

Bird and Martinez were both at a wake for Martinez’s grandfather at the Porcupine

community center. Martinez shook hands to greet everyone, including Blue Bird, and

had no other interaction with him. The next morning, Blue Bird was shoveling by the

ramp of the senior citizen home where he lived with his mother. Unaware that Blue

Bird lived there, Martinez came over to drink coffee and say hello to an older man

during a break in the continuing funeral ceremony. Without warning, Blue Bird

approached Martinez from behind with a knife and slashed Martinez’s face. Blue

Bird goaded Martinez to fight, but Martinez backed away, then fled. Blue Bird gave

chase, and witnesses saw Blue Bird with a knife running after Martinez, who was

bleeding. One eyewitness picked up Martinez in her truck and sped away. Martinez

was taken to a hospital emergency room where he received one hundred stitches to

close his facial wound. 

After Martinez testified, Blue Bird sought permission to introduce evidence of

the September attack to impeach Martinez’s testimony. In a bench conference, Blue

Bird’s attorney stated:

I have evidence to show that on a prior occasion Mr. Martinez attacked

Mr. Blue Bird . . . in an attempt to kill him; certainly injure him severely.

And that on [the January] occasion, he came to the location where Mr.

Blue Bird was living; came very near to Mr. Blue Bird, who was

outside; that Mr. Blue Bird felt threatened; . . . . Mr. Blue Bird chased

Mr. Martinez away. . . . Additionally, I believe that while we would

offer this evidence as an attack on Mr. Martinez’s credibility, Mr.

Martinez has testified that on the evening prior to January 16, that he

and Mr. Blue Bird had contact, that Mr. Blue Bird shook his hand, that

everything seemed fine. When [Mr. Martinez] gave his statement to law

enforcement . . . he told the agent that he thought things were okay

Appellate Case: 04-3157 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2005 Entry ID: 1869931 
-3-

between he and Mr. Blue Bird. . . .Well, the fact of the matter is, this

man perpetrated a vicious attack on Mr. Blue Bird. The evidence is

going to be that Mr. Blue Bird would never shake his hand; that things

weren’t okay between the two of them; and Mr. Martinez had every

reason to fear Mr. Blue Bird and the two of them were not friends. . . .

And I believe the evidence of his prior attack on Mr. Blue Bird is

relevant to impeach that version of events that he just gave. It will allow

the jury at a minimum to consider Mr. Martinez’s credibility. So we

have both the self-defense and/or justification reasons and explanation

for why there was a chase, and as relates to Mr. Martinez’s credibility.

Trial trans. at 59-61. After the Government responded that there was no evidence the

January attack was provoked, the district court denied the motion as premature. Id.

at 61-62. 

The federal agent who questioned Blue Bird about the attack testified he said

that when Martinez walked over to the senior citizen home on the morning of the

attack, he believed “Martinez was going to [mess] with his mother,” they got into a

fight, and he chased him off. Blue Bird denied cutting Martinez or having a knife.

During cross-examination, the agent alluded to Blue Bird’s “past relationship with

Martinez,” Blue Bird’s theory that Martinez was injured when he fell in a ditch

during the footchase, and the fact that all was not well between Blue Bird and

Martinez. Blue Bird again sought to introduce evidence of the September attack. The

Government again responded that Blue Bird had not presented any evidence that

Martinez provoked Blue Bird in any way. The district court denied the motion. Id.

at 114-16. After presenting defense witnesses and determining that the court would

permit the jury to hear of Blue Bird’s earlier felony conviction if he testified, Blue

Bird chose not to testify on his own behalf. During the colloquy on the waiver of his

right to testify, Blue Bird told the district court he would only testify if he could

discuss the September attack. The court responded that Blue Bird could not place a

condition on his testimony. Id. at 158. Both sides rested their case, and court was

adjourned for the day. 

Appellate Case: 04-3157 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/22/2005 Entry ID: 1869931 
-4-

The next morning, Blue Bird filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion

to reopen evidence. The court asked why Blue Bird had not testified, and Blue Bird’s

attorney stated he perceived he would not have been permitted to testify to those

things, and his fear would not make sense to the jury without the background of the

September attack, on which the district court had prohibited testimony. After the

Government stated it had released its witnesses to rebut Blue Bird’s testimony and

self-defense law does not permit a preemptive strike, the district court denied Blue

Bird’s motion. The court explained that the admission of the September altercation

would constitute a substantial mini trial, and that under Federal Rules of Evidence

404 and 405, evidence by way of reputation or opinion about Mr. Martinez’s

character for violence could be admitted, but not the specific instance of conduct in

September. Id. at 167. The court also stated it would deny admission of the evidence

under Rule 403 because introduction of the evidence would be more prejudicial than

probative on the issues in the lawsuit. Id. The court then numbered the jury

instructions and refused to submit Blue Bird’s instructions on self-defense because

the defense was not supported by the evidence. Following deliberations, the jury

convicted Blue Bird and he was sentenced to 120 months in prison. 

On appeal, Blue Bird contends the district court should have allowed him to

introduce evidence about the September assault. The district court has wide

discretion in deciding the admissibility of evidence, and did not abuse that discretion

in refusing to admit evidence of the September altercation. United States v. Waloke,

962 F.2d 824, 830 (8th Cir. 1992). Even if the evidence was admissible, its exclusion

was harmless error because Blue Bird’s own version of the January assault shows

Martinez posed no immediate threat to Blue Bird and did not fight with him. United

States v. Talamante, 981 F.2d 1153, 1157 (10th Cir. 1992). Further, the district court

could exercise its discretion to exclude the evidence on the ground that the danger of

unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the evidence’s probative value on the issue

of Martinez’s character. Waloke, 962 F.2d at 830 (applying Rule 403 analysis to

Rules 404 & 405); Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Thien, 63 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 1995)

Appellate Case: 04-3157 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/22/2005 Entry ID: 1869931 
-5-

(applying Rule 403 analysis to Rule 608(b)). Evidence of the September assault

could have confused the jury and led them to believe the January attack was justified

even though there was no evidence of any legal justification for it. 

Blue Bird also contends the district court should have given his requested selfdefense instructions. Reviewing the issue de novo, we conclude the instruction was

not warranted because Blue Bird failed to present enough evidence to sustain the

defense. United States v. Davis, 237 F.3d 942, 945 (8th Cir. 2001). To find Blue

Bird acted in self-defense, the jury would have to find Blue Bird used force that he

reasonably believed was necessary to protect himself from unlawful physical harm

about to be inflicted on him by Martinez. Hall v. United States, 46 F.3d 855, 857 (8th

Cir. 1995). Here, there is no evidence that immediately before the attack, Martinez

threatened Blue Bird in any way. Id. at 857-58. Indeed, Martinez had no interaction

with Blue Bird before the assault, Blue Bird sought out Martinez to attack him, and

Martinez tried to run away from Blue Bird. Id. Because Blue Bird had no reasonable

apprehension of fear of attack, a self-defense instruction would have been improper.

Id. 

We thus affirm Blue Bird’s convictions. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3157 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/22/2005 Entry ID: 1869931