Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02954/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02954-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sylvan Godfrey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2954

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Sylvan Godfrey

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Pierre

____________

 Submitted: March 9, 2015

 Filed: May 4, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Sylvan Godfrey was convicted on one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a

child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(c), and 2246(2)(D). Godfrey appeals,

Appellate Case: 14-2954 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Entry ID: 4271276 
challenging the district court’s admission of evidence of an earlier sexual assault by 1

Godfrey. We affirm.

From 2004 to 2007, sisters R.H. and T.H. lived with relatives near Bonesteel,

South Dakota. During the summer of 2006 or 2007, their cousin Jasmine took them

to a party at an apartment in Milk’s Camp Housing, tribal housing near Bonesteel. 

Jasmine became very intoxicated. R.H., who was then three or four years old, and

T.H., who was then seven years old, went to sleep on a bed in a back bedroom, where

Godfrey and one or more other men were sleeping. Godfrey sexually assaulted R.H.

that night. 

In 2013, Godfrey was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of

a child. The first count alleged sexual contact between Godfrey’s penis and R.H.’s

vulva. The second count alleged sexual contact between Godfrey’s fingers and hand

and R.H.’s genitalia. Before trial, the government filed a notice of intent to introduce

evidence of Godfrey’s prior sexual assault of a thirteen- or fourteen-year-old girl,

A.R.

A two-day jury trial commenced. R.H. testified that Godfrey’s hand touched

her “private part,” which she described asthe body part a girl uses to urinate, and that

she began to cry, causing T.H. to wake up. T.H. testified that she saw Godfrey on top

of R.H. and that both were naked from the waist down. T.H. indicated that Godfrey’s

penis was touching R.H.’s “private part.” T.H. testified that when she got out of bed

to go to the bathroom and find Jasmine, Godfrey also got out of bed. He then threw

R.H.’s pants to R.H. and told her to put them on. 

The HonorableRoberto A. Lange, United States DistrictJudge for the District 1

of South Dakota.

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2954 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Entry ID: 4271276 
The government then called a retired detective to testify regarding Godfrey’s

admissions related to two incidents ofsexual assault that occurred during the summer

of 2001: (1) that Godfrey had placed his hand between A.R.’s legs and had sexual

thoughts while his hand was on her vagina and (2) that Godfrey had become sexually

aroused when A.R. placed her hand on his penis and rubbed her vagina on his

buttocks. The district court determined that evidence of the first incident was

admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 413, but that evidence of the second

incident would be unfairly prejudicial and thus was not admissible. After the district

court gave a limiting instruction to the jury, the detective testified as follows:

A: [Godfrey]stated that [he and A.R.] were wrestling, and he put his

hands between her leg[s] to lift her, and at that point he realized

his hand was against her clothed vagina. And he said he left it

there on purpose, and he had sexual thoughts while his hand was

there. 

Q: Did Mr. Godfrey indicate how long he left his hand against A.R.’s

clothed vagina?

A: Initially, he said a minute or more, and then a short time later said

it was probably 30 seconds. 

The jury found Godfrey not guilty on count one and guilty on count two. 

Godfrey argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the

detective’s testimony. See United States v. Gabe, 237 F.3d 954, 959 (8th Cir. 2001)

(standard of review). In sexual-assault cases, proof of prior offenses ofsexual assault

is generally admissible against the defendant. See Fed. R. Evid. 413(a). Moreover,

“[t]he evidence may be considered on any matter to which it isrelevant,” id., and thus

may be used to show “the defendant’s propensity to commit such offenses,” Gabe,

237 F.3d at 959. See also United States v. Crawford, 413 F.3d 873, 875 (8th Cir.

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-2954 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Entry ID: 4271276 
2005) (per curiam) (“Assuming the prior offenses are relevant, Rule 413 supersedes

Rule 404’s prohibition against character evidence.”). 

Godfrey contends that evidence of the sexual assault involving A.R. was not

relevant to the offense involving R.H. He argues that the assaults were different

because they involved girls of different ages and because—unlike the sexual assault

of R.H.—the sexual assault of A.R. “occurred incident to playful wrestling,” during

which Godfrey “apparently did not have sexual thoughts initially.” “Evidence is

relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would

be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.”

Fed. R. Evid. 401. We have said that “[a] relevant sexual assault is one committed

in a manner similar to the charged offense.” United States v. Rodriguez, 581 F.3d

775, 796 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing Crawford, 413 F.3d at 875-76). The evidence of

Godfrey’s admission regarding A.R. meets the testfor relevancy set forth inRule 401,

and we agree with the district court’s analysis that the two assaults were similar:

There is the fact that A.R. at the time is a minor . . . . The touching is of

the vagina, albeit over the clothing. It is a touching that is identified as

being for sexual gratification by Mr. Godfrey.

The different ages of the girls and the somewhat different circumstances of the

assaults do not render the evidence regarding the sexual assault of A.R. irrelevant. 

See, e.g., United States v. Hollow Horn, 523 F.3d 882, 887-89 (8th Cir. 2008)

(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of

defendant’s rape of a twenty-year-old woman in a case involving defendant’s abusive

sexual contact of a seven-year-old girl and a ten-year-old girl).

Godfrey also argues that the evidence should have been excluded as unfairly

prejudicial. “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is

substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 14-2954 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Entry ID: 4271276 
Godfrey’s admission is probative because it tends to prove Godfrey’s propensity to

assault girls by placing his hand on their vaginas for sexual gratification. Despite the

especially prejudicial nature of propensity evidence, such evidence is admissible

under Rule 413. See Crawford, 413 F.3d at 876 (“[T]here is ‘strong legislative

judgment that evidence of prior sexual offenses should ordinarily be admissible.’”

(quoting United States v. LeCompte, 131 F.3d 767, 769 (8th Cir. 1997))). Godfrey

has not shown “unfair prejudice, that is, an undue tendency to suggest decision on an

improper basis.” Gabe, 237 F.3d at 960 (quoting United States v. Yellow, 18 F.3d

1438, 1442 (8th Cir. 1994)). Moreover, the district court limited the danger of unfair

prejudice by instructing the jury that Godfrey “is on trial only for the crimes charged

in the Indictment. The testimony of prior misconduct does not mean that the

defendant is guilty of the offenses charged in the Indictment.” We thus conclude that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence regarding the

sexual assault of A.R. 

We have considered Godfrey’s pro se letter to the court, in which he argues that

his attorney failed to interview potential witnesses. We ordinarily do not consider

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, United States v. Looking

Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005), and we decline to do so here. 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-5-

Appellate Case: 14-2954 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Entry ID: 4271276