Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03583/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03583-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Burdon Fabron Lester
Appellant
United States
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. 07-3583

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Burdon Fabron Lester,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

District of North Dakota.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: June 10, 2008

 Filed: July 10, 2008

________________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN and GRUENDER Circuit Judges.

________________

PER CURIAM.

Burdon Fabron Lester was convicted after a jury trial of assault resulting in

serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6) and 1153, and assault

with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3) and 1153. The

district court1

 sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment. Lester appeals his

conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict. We

affirm.

Appellate Case: 07-3583 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2008 Entry ID: 3450376
-2-

On March 23, 2007, Lester and his brother, Charles, went to the home of

Chandler and Patty Dwarf. Patty was the Lesters’ sister, and she and her husband

lived in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. Lester

and Chandler consumed alcohol over several hours, and Charles eventually left. A

verbal dispute erupted between Lester and Chandler over Chandler’s treatment of

Patty. Lester left the Dwarfs and visited their neighbor, Lyman Black Cloud. The

dispute continued in the yard between the Dwarfs’ home and Black Cloud’s home as

Lester and Chandler yelled at each other. Black Cloud and Patty observed that

Chandler had something “shiny” in his hand while he was standing on his porch.

Chandler pushed Patty to the ground, and Lester approached Chandler. The two men

met in the middle of the yard and continued yelling at each other. Black Cloud and

Patty both claimed that Chandler did not have a knife at this point. Chandler also

testified that he did not have a knife during the encounter.

Lester and Chandler began to fight while Black Cloud attempted to intervene.

Chandler felt a scratch across his face and saw a large amount of blood on his shirt.

Black Cloud then noticed that Lester was holding a knife. Neither Black Cloud nor

Patty saw Chandler holding a knife after the encounter. Chandler was hospitalized,

and the scratch he received during the fight required twenty-seven stitches and

resulted in a permanent scar. Lester fled to the nearby city of Solen and hid from

police until he was arrested.

At trial, Lester testified that Chandler first revealed a knife and initially swung

at Lester five or six times. Lester said he then pulled a flip-type knife from his belt

and slashed at Chandler, asserting that he did not intend to strike Chandler. Instead,

Chandler ran into the knife as Lester swung at him. Lester testified that he gave his

knife to Black Cloud to hide after the incident.

In the statement of issues section of his brief, Lester identifies as an issue

whether the Government failed to present sufficient evidence to the jury to sustain his

two convictions. The statement of issues lists four cases as the most apposite cases,

Appellate Case: 07-3583 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2008 Entry ID: 3450376
-3-

but the corresponding argument section of his brief then simply recites the facts,

making no argument whatsoever contesting the sufficiency of the evidence. The

argument section also cites no case law. “[U]ndeveloped issues perfunctorily

aver[r]ed to in an appellate brief are waived.” United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d

868, 870 n.3 (8th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we find that any

argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is

waived. Even if we were inclined to address it, we would find that there was

sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions.

Lester’s brief does, however, argue that the Government failed to present

sufficient evidence to the jury that he did not act in self-defense. “We review de novo

the sufficiency of the evidence and view the evidence in the light most favorable to

the verdict, giving it the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” United States v. Spears,

454 F.3d 830, 832 (8th Cir. 2006) (italics omitted). “[W]e do not weigh the evidence

or assess the credibility of the witnesses.” Id. “Instead, the jury has sole

responsibility for resolving conflicts or contradictions in testimony, and we must

resolve credibility issues in favor of the verdict.” Id.

Once a defendant produces evidence on the issue of self-defense, the

Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in

self-defense. United States v. Milk, 447 F.3d 593, 598 (8th Cir. 2006). In this case,

the district court instructed the jury:

I[f] a person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect

himself from what he reasonably believes to be unlawful physical harm

about to be inflicted by another and uses such force, then he acted in

self-defense.

However, self-defense which involves using force likely to cause

death or great bodily harm is justified only if the person believes that

Appellate Case: 07-3583 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/10/2008 Entry ID: 3450376
-4-

such force is necessary to protect himself from what he reasonably

believes to be a substantial risk of death or great bodily harm.

Final Instruction No. 8.

Lester claimed that Chandler swung at him with a knife before Lester pulled out

his own knife in self-defense. But the jury was also presented with contradictory

evidence. Although Black Cloud and Patty testified that Chandler had something

“shiny” in his hand when he stood on the porch, they both testified that he did not

have a knife during his encounter with Lester in the yard. Chandler also denied

having a knife at any time. The jury was confronted with conflicting testimony and

reasonably could have found Chandler, Patty and Black Cloud to be credible. After

the scuffle, Lester gave his knife to Black Cloud to hide and fled to Solen to evade

police, which a reasonable jury could infer were attempts to conceal his guilt. See

United States v. Bolzer, 367 F.3d 1032, 1037 (8th Cir. 2004) (finding that a jury could

infer that a weapon without fingerprints had been wiped down in an effort to conceal

guilt). A reasonable jury could also conclude that Lester’s testimony that Chandler

ran into the knife was implausible. See United States v. Timlick, 481 F.3d 1080, 1084

(8th Cir. 2007). Although Lester presented evidence in support of self-defense, we

conclude that a jury could reasonably have rejected Lester’s testimony and concluded

that he did not act in self-defense.

Therefore, we affirm Lester’s conviction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-3583 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/10/2008 Entry ID: 3450376