Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04465/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04465-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Rainbow
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4465

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the District 

* of North Dakota.

Christopher Rainbow, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 15, 2006

Filed: May 19, 2006

___________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Rainbow appeals his conviction for assault resulting in serious

bodily injury, 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6) and 1153, arguing his acquittal on a charge of

assault with a dangerous weapon, 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) and 1153, is inconsistent with

the jury's verdict. Rainbow also argues there was insufficient evidence to support a

finding of serious bodily injury. We affirm the judgment of the district court.1

Appellate Case: 05-4465 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2006 Entry ID: 2046781
-2-

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, United States v.

Calderin-Rodriguez, 244 F.3d 977, 983 (8th Cir. 2001), the evidence reveals the

following. In the early morning hours of December 11, 2005, Bureau of Indian

Affairs officer Gary Sandland was called to the Vivian Day residence in Fort Yates,

North Dakota, to investigate an assault. When he arrived, Sandland observed Ron

Kidder holding Emmette Ramsey, who was lying on the ground in front of the

residence. Ramsey was bleeding profusely from a head wound. He was transported

by ambulance to a Bismarck hospital and diagnosed with subarachnoid and subdural

bleeding, a fractured nose, and a fractured orbital socket. Ramsey was admitted for

observation and released the following day.

 

The FBI interviewed Rainbow who stated he and Ramsey had been arguing and

ended up in a confrontation. In his FBI statement, Rainbow stated he followed

Ramsey from a party at Lisa Blackhoop's home to the Day residence located two doors

down. Rainbow admitted striking Ramsey in the face and knocking him to the

ground. Rainbow further admitted he kicked Ramsey in the face and struck him with

a bar from a trampoline while Ramsey was on the ground. At trial, Rainbow denied

striking Ramsey with the bar. He did not, however, deny knocking Ramsey to the

ground and kicking him in the head and face.

Four other people were present at the Day residence when the assault occurred.

Two testified they observed the fight and saw Rainbow strike Ramsey with the bar.

The other two testified they did not observe the fight, but one, Ron Kidder, testified

he found Ramsey on the ground in front of the home and did not see the other two

witnesses who claimed to have seen the fight. A final witness testified on behalf of

Rainbow and attempted to convince the jury Ramsey's injuries were caused by a

second, unknown assailant.

Rainbow was indicted on charges of assault with a dangerous weapon and

assault resulting in serious bodily injury. Throughout the trial, the government argued

Appellate Case: 05-4465 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2006 Entry ID: 2046781
-3-

the serious injuries were inflicted by the trampoline bar which was a dangerous

weapon. The jury acquitted Rainbow of the dangerous weapon charge but convicted

him of assault resulting in serious bodily injury.

On appeal, Rainbow argues the jury's verdict on the dangerous weapon charge

is inconsistent with its verdict on the serious bodily injury count. He contends the jury

could not reasonably convict him of assault resulting in serious bodily injury if it did

not believe the government's theory as to how the injuries were inflicted. Rainbow

also contends the government did not offer sufficient evidence of serious bodily injury

to support the jury's guilty verdict.

There was conflicting evidence offered about whether the bar was involved in

the attack. In his statement to the FBI, Rainbow admitted striking Ramsey with the

bar. At trial, however, he denied using it against Ramsey and testified he picked it up

after the assault to protect himself in the event he was attacked by others at the party

or the Day residence. Two eyewitnesses testified they saw Rainbow use the bar, but

another who came on the scene immediately after the assault testified the eyewitnesses

were nowhere to be seen. Because of these discrepancies, it would not have been

unreasonable for the jury to conclude there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond

a reasonable doubt the bar was used in the assault or that it was a dangerous weapon.

There was, however, uncontradicted evidence showing Rainbow beat Ramsey with

his fists and kicked him about the head and face. Therefore, Rainbow's acquittal on

the dangerous weapon charge is not inconsistent with a finding Ramsey sustained

serious bodily injury.

Rainbow next argues the government offered insufficient evidence of serious

bodily injury to support the jury's verdict. In determining whether the evidence is

sufficient to support a conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to

the verdict, giving it the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Calderin-Rodriguez, 244

F.3d at 983. Reversal is required only where no reasonable jury could have found a

Appellate Case: 05-4465 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/19/2006 Entry ID: 2046781
2

Officer Sandland, a licensed paramedic, was allowed to testify that left

untreated the head injuries could have been life-threatening. 

-4-

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. "[T]he standard to be applied to

determine the sufficiency of the evidence is a strict one, and the finding of guilt should

not be overturned lightly." Hill v. Norris, 96 F.3d 1085, 1088 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting

United States v. Brown, 921 F.2d 785, 791 (8th Cir. 1990)).

To prove Ramsey sustained serious bodily injury, the government had to prove

an injury involving

(A) a substantial risk of death; 

(B) extreme physical pain; 

(C) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or, 

(D) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member,

organ, or mental faculty. 

18 U.S.C. § 1365. See 18 U.S.C. § 113(b)(2) (incorporating § 1365's definition of

serious bodily injury by reference).

Rainbow argues the government failed to present any expert testimony proving

the injuries were life-threatening or resulted in any impairment of the function of a

bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. Further, because Ramsey was extremely

intoxicated and could not clearly recall the assault, Rainbow contends he could not

testify to suffering extreme physical pain. For its part, the government argues the

internal brain hemorrhaging was life-threatening2

 and expert testimony was not

required because the jury could readily "see the nature and character of the injury [sic]

themselves through photographs of Ramsey."

"Determining whether an injury is serious is an issue for the jury to decide

based on its 'common understanding' of the term." United States v. Peneaux, 432 F.3d

882, 891 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Two Eagle, 318 F.3d 785, 791 (8th

Appellate Case: 05-4465 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/19/2006 Entry ID: 2046781
-5-

Cir. 2003)). Rainbow admitted striking Ramsey with his fists and kicking him in the

head and face. The beating caused a scalp laceration, inter-cranial bleeding, a

fractured nose, and a fractured orbital socket. At trial, the jury was shown pictures

depicting the injuries. From this evidence, it is entirely reasonable for a jury to

conclude Ramsey suffered extreme physical pain and potentially life-threatening

injuries.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4465 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/19/2006 Entry ID: 2046781