# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 12 60

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Darre ll Alan Lus si er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 21 , 20 16 Fil ed : J an ua ry

6, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Fo ll owi ng a jury tri al

, Darre ll Alan Lus si er was co nv ic te d of th ree co un ts of
ki dn ap pi ng , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 11 51
, 11 53 ( a )

, an d 12 01 (a)( 2)

, an d th ree

co un ts of as sa ul t res ul ti ng in se rio us b o d i l y in jury, in vi ol at io n of18 U.S.C. §§ 11 3( a)(6 ), 11 51
, an d 11 53 (a). The di st ric t cou rt se nt en ced Lus si er to 1

36 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Lus si er ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t

erro ne ou sl y in st ru ct ed th e jury reg ard in g as sa ul t res ul ti ng in se rio us bo di ly in jury,
th at th e co ur t erre d by co nd it io na ll y ad m it ti ng a pr io r a s s a u l t co nv ic ti on as im pe ach m en t ev id en ce, an d th at th e ev id en ce was i n s u ffi ci en t to co nv ic t hi m of
ki dn ap pi ng . W e aff

irm.

I.

Bec au se Lus si er ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce, “ we wil l ex am in e th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, gi vi ng th e go ve rn m en t th e be ne fit of al l reas on ab le in fere nc es .” Uni te d St at es v. Bo rd eau x, 84 F.3 d 15 44
, 15 47 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). In Feb ru ary 20 15
, Greg or y Lee Max well res id ed in a du pl ex ho us e in th e Bac k of Town area of th e Red Lak e In di an Res erv at io n. Max well was

pr oh ib it ed fro m ha vi ng dr u g s i n th e ho us e. Lus si er an d hi s th en -g irl fri en d Cri st y Su m ne r res id ed wit h Max well fo r ap pr ox im at el y on e m on th

. Max well be li ev ed th at
he was o n g oo d t erm s wi th Lus si er an d Sum ne r, who ha d “ pr et ty m uc h l eft on th ei r

own ,” bu t acco rd in g to Max well

, Lus si er an d Su m ne r ha d br ou gh t dr ug s in t o th e ho us e, de sp it e k no win g t ha t d ru gs were n ot all owe d o n t he pre m is es

.

On or ab ou t Feb ru ary 7, 20 15
, Dav id Ro y an d Max well were dr in ki ng al co ho l

to ge th er at Max well ’s ho us e. W he n Max well le ft to bu y m or e al co ho l, he in st ru ct ed

Ro y no t t o l et Lus si er an d S um ne r in to th e h ou se

. W he n M ax well ret ur ne d h om e a few ho ur s la te r, Dav id Ro y , hi s si st er Nan cy Ro y , Lus si er, an d Su m ne r were pr es en t

at hi s ho us e. Lus si er pr oc eed ed to b e a t Max well

, Dav id Ro y , an d Nan cy Ro y

. Acco rd in g to Max well

, Lus si er hi t hi m , jum pe d on hi s st om ach an d si de

, wrap pe d a bo ot la ce aro u n d hi s th ro at , an d dr ag ge d hi m by th e bo ot la ce, ch ok in g hi m

. W he n

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard H. Ky le

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-Max well tri ed to le av e, Su m ne r bl oc ke d th e do or , an d Lus si er to ld hi m : “ Ton ig ht is
th e n ig ht . Ton ig ht is th e ni gh t. You go nn a di e to ni gh t. Yo u g ot on e h ou r to li ve .”
Dav id Ro y an d Nancy Ro y were als o bad ly be at en by L us si er. Lus si er an d Sum ne r th rew Max well

, Dav id Ro y , an d Nan cy Ro y th ro ug h a tra p do or in to th e crawl sp ace

un de rn eat h th e ho us e. The y th en sh ut th e tra p do o r t o t h e c r awl sp ace, whi ch was

co ld an d po or ly li t. Max well an d Nan cy Ro y at te m pt ed to fin d th e tra p do or an d pu sh
i t op en bu t were un ab le to do so

. The th ree rem ai ne d in th e crawl sp ace u n t i l

Max well ’s ne ph ew, Lawren ce Kin gb ird

, di sc ov ered th em on the m or ni ng of Feb ru ary 9, 2 01 5.

Max well

, Dav id Ro y , an d Nan cy R o y a l l ev en tu al ly rece iv ed m ed ic al

tre at m en t. Max well su ffer ed a he m op ne um ot ho rax , bl oo d an d ai r in th e ch es t cav it y th at pl aced pr es su re on th e he art an d lu ng s an d req ui red th e pl acement of a ch es t tu be ;

se ve ral rib f

r a c t u res , whi ch li ke ly cau se d th e he m op ne um ot ho rax ; sp in ou s pr oc es s frac tu res ; a di ss ect io n of hi s caro ti d art ery, wh i c h c a u s e d h im to su ffer a st ro ke ; a de ep cu t on hi s ch in th at req ui red su tu res ; an d a tra um at ic br ai n in jury. Max well was ho sp it al iz ed fo r ap pr ox im at e l y t e n da y s an d sp en t te n m or e da y s in reh ab il it at io n. Nan cy Ro y su ffer ed a su bd ur al he m at om a an d m ul ti pl e faci al bo ne frac tu res , whi ch

req ui red su rg ery. S h e was ho sp it al iz ed fo r ap pr ox im at el y te n da y s. Dav id Ro y

s u f f e r e d he m or rh ag in g in hi s br ai n an d faci al frac tu res

. He sp en t m or e th an on e

m on th in th e h os pi ta l an d a pp ro xi m at el y on e m on th in a ps y ch ia tri c fac il it y

.

II.

A.

Lus si er fir st arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in in st ru ct in g th e jury on as sa ul t

res ul ti ng in se rio us bo di ly in jury. Bec au se Lus si er di d no t ob ject to th es e in st ru ct io ns , we rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r

. U n i t e d St at es v. Dav is

, 23 7 F.3 d 94 2, 94 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). “ [A] co nv ic ti on wil l be af f i r med ‘if th e in st ru ct io ns , ta ke n as a

-3

-who le

, fai rly an d ade qu at el y co nv ey th e la w ap pl ic ab le to th e cas e.’” Uni te d St at es

v. W hi te feat he r, 27 5 F.3 d 74 1, 74 3 (8 t h C i r. 20 02 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. McDo ug al , 13 7 F .3d 54 7, 5 58 (8t h C ir. 1 99 8) ).

Lu ss ie r co nt en ds th at th e jury in st ru ct io n di d no t req ui re th e jury to fin d t h a t
Lus si er c o mm i t t ed an as sa ul t th at res ul te d in se rio us bo di ly in jury, as th e st at ut e
req ui res

. See 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 11 3( a)(6 ). The di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury th at th e of fen se ha s two el em en ts : th at th e de fen da nt co m m it te d an a s s a u l t , an d th at th e
pe rs on as sa ul te d su ffer ed se rio us bo di ly in jury. The c ou rt de fin ed as sa ul t as “ an in te nt io na l an d vo lu nt ary at te m pt or th reat to do i n

ju r y t o an ot he r pe rs on , whe n

co up le d wit h th e pr es en t ab il it y to do so th at is su ffi ci en t t o pu t th e ot he r pe rs on in
fear of im m ed ia te bo di ly in jury.” Lus si er arg ue s th at be cau se th e in st ru ct io n de fin ed

as sa ul t on ly as a th reat or at te m pt to in jure an ot he r, it di d no t req ui re th at th e as sa ul t

act ua ll y cau se d th e se rio us bo di ly in jury. He ack no wled ge s th at we ha ve pr ev io us ly

up he ld co nv ic ti on s fo r as sa ul t un de r § 1 1 3 w h e n th e of fen se co nd uc t in vo lv ed a ha rm fu l or of

fen si ve to uc hi ng

. See W hi te feat he r, 27 5 F.3 d at 74 2- 43 ; Dav is

, 23 7
F.3 d at 94 4- 45

. Bu t he arg u e s t h a t in th os e cas es th ere was a le ga l ba si s fo r th e

as sa ul t co nv ic ti on be cau se th e jury in st ru ct io ns de fin ed ass au lt to in cl ud e an act ua l
ha rm fu l or of

fen si ve to uc hi ng , whe reas he re t h e in st ru ct io ns de fin ed as sa ul t to
in cl ud e o nl y

th e th reat or a tt em

pt to in jure an ot he r.

The jury was req ui red to fin d th at Lu ss ie r co m m it te d an as sa ul t an d th at th e
pe rs on as sa ul te d su ffer ed se rio us bo di ly in jury. W he n th es e in st ru ct i o n s are read

to ge th er, th e m os t na tu ral m ean in g is th at Lus si er’s as sa ul t cau se d th e se rio us bo di ly
in jury an d th us th at th e as sa ul t in vo lv ed ha rm fu l to uc hi ng

. Acco rd in gl y , th e in st ru ct io ns “ ta ke n a s a wh ol e, fai rly and ad eq ua te ly co nv ey [ed ] th e la w a pp li cab le

to th e cas e,” W hi te feat he r, 27 5 F.3 d at 74 3, an d th us th e jury ha d a su ffi ci en t le ga l

an d fa ct ua l b as is to co nv ic t Lu ss ie r of th at ch arg e.

-4

-Mo reo ve r, ev en if th e as sa ul t in st ru ct io n was erro ne ou s, it was no t pl ai n erro r

be cau se it di d no t affect Lus si er’s sub st an ti al rig ht s. See Uni te d S ta te s v. Van ov er, 63 0 F.3 d 11 08
, 11 19 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ). “ [A]n erro r on ly affe ct s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s if i t is pre

jud ic ia l, i.e.
, th e de fen da nt pr ov es th ere is ‘a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at , bu t fo r [th e e r r o r c l a i med], th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t.’” Id

. (s eco nd al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dom in gu ezBen it ez, 54 2 U.S. 74
, 82 (2 00 4) ). The ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al sh owe d th at Lus si er ph y si cal ly be at th e vi ct im s, no t th at he at te m pt ed or th reat en ed to be at th em

. Had th e jury in st ru ct io ns de fin ed as sa ul t to in cl ud e ph y si cal st rik in g, th e jury do ub tl es s wou ld

s t i l l ha ve co nv ic te d Lus si er. Acco rd in gl y , be cau se Lus si er ha s no t sh own a

reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e res ul t of th e t r i a l wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t ha d th e in st ru ct io n b een word ed di ffer en tl y , he h as no t s ho wn p la in erro r.

B.

Lu s s i e r c on te nd s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ru li ng th at it wou ld ad m i t
im pe ach m en t ev id en ce of hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r as sa ul t res ul ti ng in se rio us bo di ly
in jury if Lus si er te st ifi ed

, arg ui ng th at th e ru li ng vi ol at ed hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t rig ht

to du e pr oc es s a n d hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a jury tri al

. By no t te st ifyin g, Lus si er fai le d to pr es erv e th is cl ai m in li gh t of th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s ho ld in g in Luc e

v. Uni te d St at es th at “ to rai se a nd pr es erv e fo r rev ie w th e cl ai m of im pr op er im pe ach m en t wit h a pr i o r c o nv ic ti on , a de fen da nt m us t te st ify.” 46 9 U.S. 38
, 43 (1 9 84 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 76 7 F.2 d 12 59
, 12 70 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (“ Alt ho ug h Luc e was de ci de d u n d e r F e d .R.Evi d. 60 9( a)(1 ), it s lo gi c ap pl ie s wit h

eq ua l fo rce t o m ot io ns un de r Ru le 40 4.” ).

C.

Last ly, Lus si er c o n t e n ds th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t hi m of
ki dn ap pi ng

. W e rev ie w de no vo a ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce aft er

-5

-de ni al of a m ot io n fo r acq ui tt al , vi ewin g t he ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to

th e ve rd ic t. Uni te d St at es v. Fo rd

, 72 6 F.3 d 10 28
, 10 33 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). W e dr aw al l

reas on ab le i n f

e r e nc es in th e go ve rn m en t’s fav or , an d rev ers e on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Bo rd eau x, 84
F.3 d a t 1 54 7- 48 . Und er 18 U.S.C. § 12 01 (a), a de fen da nt is gu il ty o f a cri m e if th e de fe nda nt “ un la wfu ll y se iz es , co nf in es , in ve ig le s, de co y s, ki dn ap s, ab du ct s, or ca rr ie s
away an d h ol ds for ran so m or r eward or o th erwi se an y pe rs on .” Kid na pp in g un de r § 12 01 (a) th us ha s two el em en ts : th at of se iz in g , co nf in in g, in ve ig li ng , de co y in g, ki dn ap pi ng , ab du ct i n g , o r carr y in g away; an d ho ld in g fo r ran so m or rewar d or

ot he rwis e. Ch at win v. Uni te d St at es , 3 26 U.S. 4 55 , 4 59 (1 94 6 )

. A s t o t h e se co nd
el em en t, “ [t ] he act of ho ld in g a ki dn ap pe d pe rs on fo r a pr os cri be d pu rp os e ne ces sa ril y im pl ie s an un la wfu l ph y si cal or m en ta l res tra in t fo r an ap pr eci ab le pe rio d ag ai ns t th e
pe rs on ’s wil l an d wi th a wil lfu l i nt en t s o t o c on fin e th e v ic ti m .” Id . at 4 60

.

Lus si er arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t be cau se it di d no t sh ow th at
he “ he ld ” th e vi ct im s. The di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury th at Lus si er was ch arg ed
wit h ho ld in g each vi ct im “ fo r th e pu rp os e of pr ev en ti ng hi m or he r fro m co nt act in g la w en fo rcem en t an d pr ev en ti ng th e di s c o v e r y of Defen da nt ’s cri m e.” Lus si er

co nt en ds th at t h e e v i d e nc e do es no t sh ow he he ld or ha d th e in te nt io n to ho ld th e vi ct im s be cau se th e tra p do or to th e crawl sp ace was no t lo ck ed or ob st ru ct ed

, an d
th ere is no ev id en ce th at Lus si er rem ai ne d at Max well ’s ho us e to pr ev en t th e vi ct im s fro m esc ap in g.

W e co nc lu de th at th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t Lus si er of ki dn ap pi ng

. Lus si er be at th e th r e e v i c t i ms , cau si ng each of th em si gn ifi can t in juri es

. He th en th rew th em in to th e crawl sp ace an d cl os ed th e do or , le av in g th em in a co ld

, di m ly li t

sp ace whe re th ey wou ld no t be read il y fo un d. A jury co ul d reas on ab ly in fer f ro m th es e fact s th at Lus si er in te nd ed t o co nf in e th e in jure d, in cap aci ta te d vi ct im s an d

pr ev en t th em fro m rep or ti ng th e as sa ul t no twi th st an di ng hi s fai lu re to lo ck or ob st ru ct
th e tra p do or or pe rs on al ly st an d gu a r d t o p rev en t th em fro m es cap in g. Cf. Uni te d

-6

-St at es v. St an ds

, 10 5 F.3 d 15 6 5
, 1 5 7 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (h ol di ng th at ev id en ce was

su ffi ci en t fo r ki dn ap pi ng co nv ic ti on whe re Defen da nt inv ei gle d or de co y ed the vic tim
fo r th e pu rp os e of

tra ns po rta ti on to an is ol at ed lo cat io n wh ere a ss au lt wou ld no t b e in te rru pt ed ).

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-