T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. H onor abl e J ul i e A . R obi ns on, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe D i s tr i ctof * K ans as , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### F e b r u ar y 13, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. J E F F AL AN WI L S ON,

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 5223 ( D. Ct . No. 0 5 - CR- 2 7 - CV E- ALL)

( N . D . O kl a)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , S EY M OUR , C i r cui tJ udge, and RO B I NS ON , * D i s tr i ctJ udge. F o llo w in g a ju rytrial, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t Je f

f W ilso n w a s c o n v icte d o f a ss a u lt resu lt ing in se ri o u s b o d il yinjuryin v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 3 (a)(6). T h e D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d hi m t o 50 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . M r . W i l s on t i m el yappea l s hi s convi ct i on, ar gui ng thatthe ver di ctform m i s s t at ed the appl i cabl e l aw . W e t ake j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d A F F I R M.- 2 - I . BA CKGROUND T he G overnm ent ’ s evi dence attr i al r evea l ed that , on J anuary29, 2005, M r . W i l s on s pentthe af

t ernoon dr i nki ng w i th hi s gi r l fr i end Luanne B arr ett . She cons um ed appr oxi m at el ys i x t o ei ghtbeer s w hi l e he c ons um ed appr oxi m at el ytw el ve. T heyal s o had s om e t equi l a atM s . B arr ett ’ s s i s t er ’ s hous e. L at erthatni ght , M s . B arr ettand M r . W i l s on go ti nto a “shov i ng m at ch” in on e of the bed room s. T he sho ving m at ch en ded and M s. B arr ettl eftthe bedr oom . She pl ace d a phone c al l and then w al ked bac k dow n the hal l w ayt ow ar d t he bedr oom s he had j us tl eft . M r . W i l s on j um ped outatherand pus hed h e r u p a g a in s t a w a ll. H e m a d e a “ p u n c h in g ” m o tio n w ith o n e h a n d a n d b a c k e d a w a y . M s. B a rre tt fe lt a b u rn in g se n sa tio n o n h e r sto m a c h a n d d isc o v e re d sh e h a d b e e n c u t w ith a kni fe. A l though M s . B arr ettdi d nots ee the kni fe i n M r . W i l s on’ s hand, s he s ai d he r out i nel ycarr i ed one c l i pped t o hi s pocket . A phot ogr aph of the cut , w hi ch w as appr oxi m at el yfi ve i nches l ong, w as admi t t ed i nt o evi dence . M r . W i l s on t es t i fi ed att r i al that he w as verydrunk that ni gh tand had no recol l ect i on of h urt i ng M s. B arr et t . H e al so tes tifie d th a t h e d id n o t h u rt h e r. T o h is re c o llec tio n , h o w e v e r, h e h a d h is k n if e w ith h im th a t n ig h t. M r . W i l s on w as char ged i n a tw o- counti ndi ctm entforas s aul tw i th a dange r ous w e a p o n w ith in te n t to d o b o d ily h a rm , s ee 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 (a )(3 ), an d a ss a u lt res u lti n g in s e ri o u s b o d ily in

ju ry, s ee 18 U . S. C . § 113( a) ( 6) . A ft eral l the evi dence attr i al w as pr es ent ed, the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatM r . W i l s on w as ent i t l ed t o a j uryi ns truct i on forC ountT w o on a l es s er - i ncl uded off ens e of a s s aul tbys tr i ki ng, beat i ng, orw oundi ng,- 3 -

s ee 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 3 (a)(4). T h e ins tru cti o n said that the ju ryco u ld co n side r th e lesse ri ncl uded off

ens e i f i tacqui t t ed on the cha r ged off ens e orm ade r eas onabl e ef for t s t o r eac h a v e rd ict o n th e c h a rg e d o f f e n se . T h e v e rd ict f

o rm , h o w e v e r, sta ted th a t th e ju ryc o u ld o n lyco n side r th e lesse r-i n clud ed o ff en se if the juryac q u itted o n the c h arg ed o ff en se. M r. W i l s on di d notobj ectt o t he ver di ctform . Fol l ow i ng a j urytr i al , M r . W i l s on w as a c q u itte d o n C o u n t O n e a n d c o n v ic te d o n C o u n t T w o . I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . St andar d of R evi ew “W e r evi ew j uryi ns truct i ons i n thei rent i r etyundera de novo s t andar d of r evi ew . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. LaV

al l ee , 439 F. 3d 670, 684 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “I n s o doi ng, w e ana l y ze, i n l i ghtof the r ecor d, w hetherthe i ns truct i ons s t at e the governi ng l aw and w hetherthe j uryw as pr ovi ded an i nt el l i gent , m eani ngful under s t andi ng of the appl i cabl e i s s ues and s t andar ds . ” Id . (qu o tat ion o m itted). W e r evi ew ver di ctform s underthe s ame st andar d of re v ie w a p p lic a b le to ju ry in s tru c tio n s . U ni t ed Stat es v. St iger , 4 1 3 F .3 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 9 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W e w ill re v e rse o n lyif w e h a v e “ su b sta n tial d o u b t th a t th e ju ryw a s f a irly gui ded. ” U

n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 1 3 F .3 d 1 4 2 1 , 1 4 2 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). M o re o v e r, b e c a u s e M r. W ils o n d id n o t o b je c t b e lo w , w e re v ie w o n ly f o r p la in e rr o r. See LaV al l ee , 439 F. 3d at684. “Thi s courthas di s cr et i on t o r ecogni ze pl ai n err orthatw as n o t ra ise d in th e d istric t co u rt w h e n (1 ) th e re is a n e rro r; (2 ) th a t is p lain ; (3 ) th a t af f e c ts s ubs t ant i al r i ght s ; and ( 4) thats er i ous l yaff ect s the fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Law r ence , 405 F. 3d 888, 906 ( 10th C i r . 2005)- 4 -

( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C ot t on , 5 3 5 U .S . 6 2 5 , 6 3 1

– 3 2 (2 0 0 2 )) , cer t . deni ed , --- U . S . --- , 1 2 6 S . C t. 4 6 8 (20 0 5 ). B . M e rits T h e j u r y i n s tru c t i o n o n C o u n tT w o , a s s a u l tr e s u l t i n g i n s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u ry, pr ovi ded: T he l aw perm i t s the j uryt o det erm i ne the gui l tori nnocenc e of the defe ndantforanycr i m e thati s nece s s ar i l yi ncl uded w i thi n the off ens e of as s aul tr es ul t i ng i n s er i ous bodi l yi nj ury , as char ged i n counttw o of the in d ic tm e n t. If y o u sh o u ld f

in d th e D e f

e n d a n t “n o t g u ilty ” o f

th e c rim e o f

a ss a u lt re s u ltin g in s e ri o u s b o d ily in ju ry, o r if a

ftera ll re a so n a b le e

ffo rts , y o u are u n a b le to re a c h a v e rd ict a s to th a t o f f e n se , the n y o u sh o u ld p ro c e e d to det erm i ne w hetherthe U ni t ed St at es has pr oven the gui l tof the D efe ndant forthe cr i m e of a s s aul tbys tr i ki ng, beat i ng, orw oundi ng. (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h is i n stru cti o n co n fo rm ed to the T en th C ir cu it ’s pa tt ern jury in s tru c tio n s . See 1 0 th C ir ., C r i m i nalP at t er n Jur y I ns tr uct i ons (2 0 0 5 e d .) , N o. 1. 33. T he v e rd ict f o rm f o r C o u n t T w o sta ted , h o w e v e r, th a t “[ o ]n lyif y o u a n sw e re d ‘N o t G u ilty ’ to C ountT w o, pr ocee d t o t he ver di ctform ent i t l ed, ‘ V er di ctFor m — N ece s s ar i l yI ncl uded O ffe ns e. ’ ” M r . W i l s on cont ends thatthe ver di ctform m i s s t at ed the l aw and barr ed the ju ryf ro m c o n sid e rin g th e les se r-in c lu d e d o f f e n se e v e n if

th e ju ro rs h a d m a d e re a so n a b le e f f o rt s to d e c id e th e c h a rg e d o f f e n s e . A s an i ni t i al m att er , w e agr ee w i th M r . W i l s on thatthe ver di ctform m i s s t at ed the a p p lica b le la w . B u t th e e rro r d o e s n o t in u re to th e b e n e f it o f M r. W ilso n o n a p p e a l. T h is C our tr ece nt l ynot ed, i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B r uce , 458 F. 3d 1157 ( 10th C i r . 2006) , that a ss a u lt b ystrik in g , b e a tin g , o r w o u n d in g is n o t a le ss e r-in c lu d e d o f f e n se o f a ss a u lt- 5 -

re su lti n g in se rio u s b o d ilyin ju ryb e c a u se th e f

o rm e r re q u ire s a to u c h in g a n d is a k in to comm on l aw batt ery , w hi l e the l att erdoes notnece s s ar i l yr equi r e a phy s i cal t ouchi ng. I d. a t 1 1 6 2 n .1 ; s ee al

s o Schm uck v . U

ni t ed Stat es , 48 9 U . S . 70 5, 71 6 (198 9) ( “[O ]ne offen se i s not‘ nece s s ar i l yi ncl uded’ i n anotherunl es s the el ement s of the l es s eroffe ns e ar e a su b se t o f th e e lem e n ts o f

th e c h a rg e d o f

f e n se .”). A s s u c h , M r. W ilso n w a s n o t en tit led to an i ns truct i on on as s aul tbys tr i ki ng, beat i ng, orw oundi ng, and the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed (i n M r. W ils o n ’s f

a v o r) b yg iv in g o n e . T he onl yr emai ni ng ques t i on i s w hetherthe conf l i ctbetw een the j uryi ns truct i on a n d th e v e rd ic t f

o rm s o m e h o w a m o u n ts to re v e rs ib le e rr o r. W e c o n c lu d e th a t it d o e s n o t. Un d e rth e f

a c t s o f th i s c a s e , M r . Wi l s o n c a n n o tme e tth e th i r d p r o n g o f p l a i n e rr o rr e v i e w, w hi ch r equi r es thathe “make a s peci fi c s how i ng of pr ej udi ce. ” U n itedS ta tes v . A ten c ia , 4 3 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 3 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T o d e m o n stra te p re

ju d ice , the d e f

e n d a n t m u st s h o w “ a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t, butforthe err orcl ai m ed, the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 403 F. 3d 727, 733 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. D om i nquezB eni t ez , 542 U . S. 74 ( 2004) ) . I n thi s cas e, the j uryi ns truct i on di r ect ed the j uryt o cons i derthe l es s eroffe ns e i f i tacqui t t ed on the cha r ged off ens e orm ade r eas onabl e ef

for t s t o r eac h a ver di cton the cha r ged off ens e. T he ver di ctform i ns truct ed the ju ryto co n side r th e lesse r of fe n se o n lyif i t acq u itted o n the c h arg ed o ff en se. T h e jury s ubs equent l yconvi ct ed M r . W i l s on on the cha r ged off ens e. H ence , r egar dl es s of w hether the j uryfol l ow ed the l anguage i n t he j uryi ns truct i on orthe ver di ctform , i tnever- 6 -

co n side red the “ lesser” o ff en se o f a ssau ltb ystr iking , b ea ti n g , o r w o u n d ing . B ec au se M r. W ilso n w a s n o t en tit led to a n yin stru c tio n o n th e latte r o f f e n se a n d th e ju ryo n ly c o n s id e re d th e c h a rg e d o f f e n s e , th e in s tru c tio n o n th e la tte r o f f e n s e w a s s u p e rf

lu o u s . T hati s , the conf

l i ct i ng l anguage i n the i ns truct i on and the ver di ctform s i m pl yhad no eff ecton the out come of t he ca s e, and M r . W i l s on has fai l ed t o demonstr at e pr ej udi ce. M r . W i l s on ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtagr eed t o the i ns truct i on on as s aul tby s tr i ki ng, beat i ng, orw oundi ng beca us e the G overnm ent ’ s evi dence w i th r es pectt o the seriou sn ess o f M s. B en n ett ’s i n juryw as w ea k . E v en if w e w ere to co n stru e M r. W il so n ’s a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l as c h a llen g in g h is c o n v ictio n o n e v id e n tiary gr o u n d s, w e w o u ld n ev erthe less af

firm h is co n v ict ion . A s w e e x p lai n b elow , a d e n o v o rev iew o f th e re co rd re v e a ls e v id e n c e s u f

f ic ie n t to s u s ta in h is c o n v ic tio n . S e e U n itedS ta tes v . C h a v is , 461 F. 3d 1201, 1207 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( “Suffi ci encyof the evi dence i s a ques t i on of l aw that w e r evi ew de novo, as ki ng onl yw hethert aki ng the evi dence –both di r ectand ci r cumst ant i al , t ogetherw i th t he r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t o be dr aw n ther efr om –i n the l i ght m o st f a v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld f in d th e d e f

e n d a n t [ ] g u ilty b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t. ” (a lt era ti o n in o ri g inal) (qu o tat ion s o m itted)). A “ser i ou s bod i l yi njury ” i s a bod i l yi njury“w hich i nv olves ( A ) a s ub st anti al ri sk o f d e a th ; ( B) e x tr e me p h y s i c a l p a i n ; ( C) p r o tr a c t e d a n d o b v i o u s d i s f i g u r e me n t ; o r( D) pr otr act ed l os s ori m pai r m entof the func t i on of a bodi l ym ember , or gan, orm ent al fac ul ty . ” 18 U . S. C . §§ 113( b) ( 2) , 1365( h) ( 3) . T he j uryhear d t es t i m onythatM r . W i l s on sta b b e d M s. B e n n e tt w h ile h e h a d h e r p u sh e d u p a g a in st a w a ll. S p e c if ica lly , M s. B e n n e tt- 7 -

tes tifie d th a t M r. W ilso n “ m a d e a p u n c h in g m o tio n w ith h is h a n d ” a n d th e n M s. B e n n e tt fel ta “burni ng s ens at i on” and l ooked dow n t o s ee thats he w as cover ed i n bl ood. She w as l at ertr eat ed atthe hos pi t al . I n addi t i on, the j urys aw a phot ogr aph depi ct i ng a fi ve- i nch w o u n d o n M s. B en n ett ’s ab d o m en . A lth o u g h M s. B en n ettd id n o t use the w o rd “extr em e” t o d escr i be h er pai n (nor w as she asked b yei ther the p rosecut i on or the d efen se couns el t o des cr i be herpai n) , “j ur i es m ayus e comm on s ens e t o eval uat e the evi dence and m ake r eas onabl e i nfer ence s fr om i t . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Tayl or , 2 2 6 F .3 d 5 9 3 , 6 0 1

– 0 2 (7 th C i r . 2000) ( al t er at i on and quot at i on om i t t ed) ( concl udi ng thata j uryw oul d have f ound bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthata gun- s hotw ound t o the arm r equi r i ng hos pi t al tr eatm ent caus ed “e xtr eme phy s i cal pai n”) . A j urycoul d cert ai nl yconcl ude thata s t abbi ng, r es ul t i ng i n a fi ve- i nch w ound, w oul d caus e extr eme phy s i cal pai n. V i ew i ng the evi dence in th e lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to th e G o v e rn m e n t, w e th e re f o re c o n c lu d e th a t a r e a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld f

in d M r. W ilso n g u iltyb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. Fi nal l y , M r . W i l s on ar gues thatthe l aw of the ca s e doctr i ne s houl d appl yand that the agr eed upon j uryi ns truct i on beca m e the “l aw of the ca s e. ” Thi s doctr i ne has no a p p lica tio n in th is c a se . A s th e G o v e rn m e n t p o in ts o u t, th e d o c trin e “ is a p p lied to h o ld the g o v ern m en t t o the b u rde n o f p rov ing ea ch elem en t of a c ri m e a s set o u t i n a jury i ns truct i on t o w hi ch i tfai l ed t o obj ect , even i f the uncha l l enged j uryi ns truct i on goes bey ond the cr i m i nal s t atut e’ s r equi r ement s . ” Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 376 F. 3d 1048, 1051 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . H er e, ther e i s no di s put e thatthe j uryw as pr oper l yi ns truct ed on eac h el ementof the cha r ged off ens e and thatthe G overnm entpr oved ea ch el ementT he el ement s of the off ens e of a s s aul tr es ul t i ng i n s er i ous bodi l yi nj uryar e that 1 ( 1) the def

endantcomm i t t ed an a s s aul t ; ( 2) the vi ct i m s uffe r ed s er i ous bodi l yi nj ury ; ( 3) th e a s s a u lt o c c u rr e d in In d ia n c o u n tr y ; a n d (4 ) t h e d e f e n d a n t is a n In d ia n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Zu n ie , 4 4 4 F . 3 d 1 2 3 0 , 1 2 3 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ing 1 8 U . S . C . § § 1 1 3 (a)(6) a n d 1 1 5 3 ). - 8 - b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. A c c o rd in g ly, th is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e ri t. 1 I I I . CO NC L US I ON F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e A F F IR M . ENTERED FOR TH E CO UR T,

D eane l l R eec e Tacha C i r cui tJ udge