# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 19 38

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Deri ck Co li n Wil ki ns on

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 No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 5, 2 01 8
Fi le d: Ju ne 12 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, MURPHY, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Deri ck Co li n W il ki ns on ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on aft er a jury fo un d hi m gu il ty of

as sa ul t resu lt in g i n s eri ou s b od il y in jury an d ass au lt wit h a da ng ero us weap on

. Se e

Thi s op in io n is be in g fil ed by Ju dg e Gru en de r an d Ju dg e Kell y pu rs ua nt to 8t h 1

Ci r. R. 47 E.18 U.S.C. §§ 11 3( a)(6 ) & 11 53 ; id

. §§ 11 3( a)(3 ) & 11 53

. W il ki ns on arg ue s th at th e

di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by refu si ng to ad m it ev id en ce of hi s vi ct im ’s pr io r

2

ba d act s an d in de nyin g hi s rel at ed m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r

28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we af

fir m

.

On th e ni gh t of Apr i l 2 5

, 2 0 16

, W il ki ns on an d hi s gi rlf rie nd

, Mi ran da Fo x,

were at a lo cal ba r whe n th ey en co un te red Mi ch ael W hi te Thu nd er, an acq ua in ta nc e

of W il ki ns on

. W hi te Thu nd er was em ot io na l an d co nf id ed in W il ki ns on ab ou t so m e

rel at io ns hi p pr ob le m s. The th ree th en pr oc eed ed to an ot he r ba r, th e Leg io n, to ha ve

a few m or e d r i nk s. The m an ag er of th e Leg io n ob se rv ed th at th ey were al l “ ve ry
dr un k,” an d sh e ov erh eard W hi te Thu nd er m ak e a se xu al co m m en t ab ou t Fo x. Afte r

no ti ci ng th at W hi te Thu nd er was so in to xi cat ed th at he was pa ss in g ou t, th e m an ag er

as ke d th e gr ou p to le av e. Sh or tl y aft er m id ni gh t, th e Leg io n’s se cu rit y cam era syste m

cap tu red th em

de pa rti ng

.

W il ki ns on an d F ox de ci de d to dr iv e W hi te Thu nd er h om e b ecau se he was s o

in to xi cat ed

. Afte r he lp in g hi m in to th e ba ck se at of Fo x’s ve hi cl e, W il ki ns on en te red

th e fro nt pa ss en ge r se at

. As Fo x be ga n to dr iv e away, W hi te Thu nd er m ad e an ot he r
le wd co m

m en t ab ou t he r. He th en “ frea ke d ou t,” swi ng in g hi s arm s wil dl y an d

pu nc hi ng th e ba ck of Fo x’s se at

. Fo x an d W il ki ns on bo th to ld hi m to st op , an d Fo x

y el le d ou t th at W hi te Thu nd er ha d hi t he r. W il ki ns on th en reac he d ba ck to ward

W hi te Thu nd er an d pu nc he d hi m in th e face fiv e or si x ti m es

. O l iv ia Bak er, a bysta nd er, ob se rv ed W il ki ns on dr ag an ap pa ren tl y un co ns ci ou s Whi te Thu nd er ou t

of th e ve hi cl e an d st om

p on hi s he ad th ree to fo ur ti m es

. Bak er ne xt sa w W il ki ns on

pu ll W hi te Thu nd er’s bo dy fu rth er acro ss th e ro ad an d jum p wit h bo t h feet

, ag ai n

la nd in g on W hi te Thu nd er’s he ad

. Afte r st rik in g th is fin al bl ow, W il ki ns on ret ur ne d

The Hon or ab le Dan ie l L. Hov la nd

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 2

fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

.

-2

-to th e ve hi cl e an d dr ov e away, le av in g W hi te Thu nd er un co ns ci o u s o n th e gr ou nd

wit h m ul ti pl e fac ia l fr act ur es

.

Wi l k i n so n was ch arg ed wit h as sa ul t res ul ti ng in se rio us bo di ly in jury a n d

as sa ul t wi th a da ng ero us weap on

. Befo re t ria l, Wilk in so n n ot ifi ed th e Gov ern m en t

of hi s in te nt io n to in tro du ce: (1 ) te st im on y fro m Bet ty Mu ll uc k- Heart

, a rel at iv e an d

pr io r as sa u l t v ic ti m of W hi te Thu nd er, as to he r op in io n on W hi te Thu nd er’s

pr op en si ty fo r vi ol en ce (“ t h e Mu ll uk -Hear t ev id en ce”) ; (2 ) te st im on y fro m Sk y le r

Mo ran , W hi te Thu nd er’s ex -g irl fri en d, as to a sp eci fic in ci de nt of do m es ti c vi ol en ce

an d W hi te Thu nd er’s reco rd of co nv ic ti on fro m th is as sa ul t (“ th e Mo ran ev id en ce”)

. W il ki ns on arg ue d th at th is ev id en ce was ad m is si bl e to sh ow hi s st at e of m in d whe n

W hi te Thu nd er be cam e be ll ig eren t i n th e ba ck of Fo x’s ve hi cl e. Sp eci fic al ly,

W il ki ns on pl an ne d to arg ue th at he was jus ti fie d in as sa ul ti ng W hi te Thu nd er un de r
a d efen se -o f-an ot he r th eo ry

.

At tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t ex cl ud ed th e Mo ran ev id en ce un de r Fed eral Ru le s of

Evi de nc e 40 3 an d 6 0 9

. A lt ho ug h th e co ur t was wil li ng to al lo w Mo ran to te st ify

ab ou t W hit e T hund er ’s rep ut at io n fo r vi ol en ce to ward wom en an d to al lo w W il ki ns on

t o t e st ify ab ou t hi s own kn owl ed ge of th e Mo ran as sa ul t, W il ki ns on ’s at to rn e y

de ci de d no t to ha ve ei th er wit ne ss te st ify. He di d, ho wev er, cal l on Mu ll uk -Hear t to

te st ify as to W hi te Thu nd er’s rep ut at i o n fo r vi ol en ce to ward wom en

. The jury

ul ti m at el y co nv ic te d W il ki ns on of bo th ch arg es , an d he mo ve d fo r a ne w tri al

,
arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d i n e x c l u di ng th e Mo ran ev id en ce. The di st ric t

co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n an d se nt en ced W il ki ns on to 55 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Thi s

ap pe al fol lo wed

.

W il ki ns on arg ue s th at th e d i s t ric t co ur t im pr op erl y ex cl ud ed th e Mo ran

ev id en ce, an is su e th at we rev ie w fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d St at es v.

Ja cks on , 85 2 F.3 d 76 4, 77 4 (8 th C ir. 20 17 ). “ The ge ne ral ru le is th at pr io r act s

te st im on y is no t ad m is si bl e to pr ov e a vi ct im act ed in co nf or mi t y w i t h hi s

-3

-c h a r a ct er

. . . .” Uni te d St at es v. Bor de au x , 57 0 F.3 d 10 41

, 10 49 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 9 )

(in te rn al qu ot at io ns m a r k s o m it te d)

. “ Howev er, ev id en ce of pr io r ba d act s of th e
vi ct im are ad m is si bl e un de r Ru le 40 4( b) to es ta bl is h th e de fen da nt ’s st at e of m in d an d

th e re a s o na bl en es s of th e de fen da nt ’s us e of fo rce.” Id

. A di st ric t co ur t m ay

no ne th el es s ex cl ud e ev id en ce un de r Ru le 40 3 “ if it s pr ob at iv e va lu e is su bs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh ed by a da ng er of

. . . un fai r pr ejud ic e, co nf us in g th e is su es , m is le ad in g th e jury, un du e de la y , was ti ng ti m e, or ne ed le ss ly pr es en ti ng cu m ul at iv e ev id en ce.” Fed

. R. Evi d. 4 03

.

The di st ric t co ur t ex cl ud ed th e Mo ran e v id en ce aft er fin di ng th at it wou ld

li ke ly res ul t in a m in i-t ria l, was fact ua ll y di ss im il ar fro m th e in st an t ev en ts

, an d ha d

li m it ed pr ob at iv e va lu e. The se de te rm in at io ns were no t an ab us e of th e d i s t ric t

co ur t’s b ro ad di sc ret io n ov er evi de nt ia ry ru li ng s. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Wal ok e , 96 2

F.2 d 82 4, 83 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ). Mo reo ve r, th e co ur t al lo wed W il ki ns on to te st ify

ab ou t hi s kn owl ed ge of th e Mo ran as sa ul t and pe rm it te d Mu ll uk -Hear t, Mo ran , an d

W il ki ns on to tes ti fy

ab ou t Whi te Thu nd er’s repu ta ti on fo r vi ol en ce towa rd wom en

. Had W il ki ns on ’s at to rn ey pr es en te d al l of th is ev id en ce, Mo ran ’s ba d- act s te st im on y
al so wou ld ha ve be en cu m ul at iv e of W il ki ns on ’s m or e rel ev an t te st im on y as to wha t

he act ua ll y

kn ew ab ou t h er as sa ul t.

Eve n if W il ki ns on were co rrec t th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y ex cl ud ed th e

Mo ran ev id en ce, ho wev er, an y su ch erro r was ha rm le ss

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Co tt on , 82 3 F.3 d 43 0, 43 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (“ An ev id en ti ary erro r is ha rm le ss i f i t di d no t

su bs ta nt ia ll y in flu en ce th e jury’ s ve rd ic t.”)

. The di st ric t co ur t’s in st ru ct io ns to th e jury m ad e cl ear th at W il ki ns on was jus ti fie d in “ us in g forc e li ke ly to cau se de at h or

gr eat bo di ly ha rm (d ead ly fo rce)

. . . on ly if [h e] reas on ab ly be li ev e[d ] th at su ch fo rce [wa]s n eces sa ry

to pro te ct hi m se lf o r an ot he r fro m

. . . a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of

de at h o r

gr eat bo di ly ha rm .” Yet, ev en if W il ki ns on was jus ti fie d in pu nc hi ng W hi te Thu nd er

in si de th e ve h i c l e t o de fen d Fo x, un di sp ut ed ev id en ce sh ows th at he wen t on to

rep eat ed ly ki ck an d st om p on W hi te Th u n d e r ou ts id e th e ve hi cl e aft er he lo st

-4

-co ns ci ou sn es s an d po se d no th reat to Fo x. The se la te r bl ows were no t de li ve red in

de fen se of Fo x, th ereb y de feat in g W il ki ns on ’s de fen se-o f-an ot he r th eo ry

. Se e Uni te d

St at es v. Bar re ra , 62 8 F.3 d 10 04

, 10 09 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at a de fen da nt ’s

se lf- de fen se th eo ry ne ces sa ril y fai le d whe n he pr oc eed ed to ki ck an arm ed as sa il an t

“ as if he was ki ck in g a 45 -y ard fie ld go al ” aft er th e wou ld -b e a ss ai la nt ha d al read y
be en su bd ue d)

. The refo re, we co nc lu de th at an y erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex cl us io n

of th e Mo ran ev i d e n c e w a s h arm le ss an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s
di sc ret io n i n d en y in g Wik in so n’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l o n t ha t b as is

.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

W il ki ns on ’s con vi ct io n.

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

-5

-