# 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- 36 74

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

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.

Ch arl es Max well Krau se

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 19 , 20 18

Fi le d: Jan ua ry

30 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SHEPHERD, KELLY, an d S TRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

A jur y f o u n d C h arl es Max well Krau se gu il ty of on e co un t of da m ag in g

pr op ert y o f t h e U n i te d St at es va lu ed at m or e th an $1 ,00 0 aft er a dr un k- dr iv in g

in ci de nt in whi ch Krau se st ru ck an d de st ro y ed a lo cal iz er an te nn a arra y at aLak ev il le

, Mi nn es ot a area ai rp or t. The di st ric t co ur t 1 se nt en ced Krau se to two y ears

pr ob at io n an d ord ered res ti tu ti on in th e am ou nt of $1 15 ,32 3.7 6. Krau se ch al le ng es

hi s co nv ic ti on on two gr ou nd s: th at th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y in st ru ct ed th e jury

as to th e el em en ts of t he off en se an d th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt a

gu il ty verd ic t. Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , we affi rm

.

I.

On th e ni gh t of Sep te m

be r 5, 20 14

, Krau se

, who was a li cen se d pi lo t, dr ov e hi s

Ch ev ro le t Cru ze on to th e ru nwa y of Airl ak e Airp o r t

, a s ma ll

, reg io na l ai rp or t in

Lak ev il le

, Mi nn es ot a. To reac h th e ru nwa y fro m ci ty st reet s, Krau se ha d to le av e th e

p a v ed ro ad , d riv e acro ss a fie ld , a nd dr iv e aro un d a ga te

. Krau se dr ov e hi s ve hi c l e

th e en ti re di st an ce of th e ru nwa y at hi gh sp eed s, co nt in ue d pa st th e en d of th e ru nwa y

on to a gr as sy area

, an d st ru ck he ad on a lo cal iz er an te nn a arra y —a de vi ce us ed to ai d

pi lo ts in m ak in g in st ru m en t la nd in gs

. Krau se th en dr ov e in to a di tc h an d fli pp ed hi s

ve hi cl e, whi ch cam e to res t in a ne arb y co rn fie ld

. Im m e d i a t e l y aft er th e cras h, at

ab ou t 11 :3 0 p.m

., Krau se

, who su st ai ne d on ly m in or in juri es

, cal le d hi s m ot he r as ki ng

fo r a rid e ho m e. His m ot he r te st ifi ed at tri al th at Krau se se em ed di so rie nt ed on th e

cal l an d was un su re of whe re he was l oc at ed . She rem ai ne d o n t he ph on e wit h h im

whi le he de sc rib ed hi s l o cat io n, an d sh e ul ti m at el y lo cat ed hi m ne ar th e ai rp or t.

Neit he r Krau se no r hi s m ot he r co nt act ed au th or it ie s to r e p o r t t h e in ci de nt be cau se

ne it he r wan te d to im

pl ic at e Krau se in a dr un k- dr i v i n g o f f e n se

. The fo ll owi ng

m or ni ng , Krau se cal le d a to w tru ck to ret rie ve hi s v eh ic le

.

On th e m or ni ng of Sep te m be r 6, 20 14

, Lak e v i l le Po li ce Offi cer Tho m as

St ewart res po nd ed to a cal l ab ou t a da m ag ed ve hi cl e le ft in a co r n f i e l d ne ar th e

ru nwa y

. W he n he arri ve d at th e sc en e, he ob se rv ed th e C h e v r o l e t Cru ze wit h

1 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

of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-s i g n i f

ic an t da m ag e, in cl ud in g de pl oyed ai rb ag s, a de nt ed ro of

, an d br ok en ou t

win do ws. Bas ed on th e st at e of th e ve hi cl e, Offi cer St ewart be li ev ed it ha d be en

tra ve li ng at hi gh sp eed s or ha d be en “ ou tru nn in g it s h e a d l i g h ts ” an d th at it ha d

fli pp ed ov er be fo r e c o mi n g to res t. Sh or tl y aft er Offi cer St ewart arri ve d, Krau se

arri ve d in a to w tru ck

. Offi cer Stewa rt ob se rv ed th at Krau se ha d bl oo ds ho t, watery

ey es

, w a s s l u r rin g hi s sp eech

, an d ha d th e sm el l of an al co ho li c be ve rag e on hi s

br eat h. Offi cer St ewart op in ed th at Krau se was st il l feel in g th e e f f e c t s of al co ho l

whe n h e en co un te red hi m

.

Offi cer St ewart qu es ti on ed Krau se ab ou t th e in ci de nt

. Krau se ex pl ai ne d th at

he was th e own er of th e ve hi cl e, bu t st at ed th at a fri en d ha d be en dr iv in g at th e ti m e

of th e in ci de nt

. Co nc ern ed ab o u t t h e sa fet y of th e pu rp or te d “ fri en d” du e to th e

ex te ns iv e da m ag e to th e ve hi cl e, Offi cer St ewart in fo rm ed Krau se th at of fic ers wou ld

ch eck lo cal ho sp it al s to lo cat e th e dr iv er. Krau se th en ad m it te d th at he ha d be en th e

dr iv er an d so le oc cu pa nt of th e ve hi cl e. Bas ed up on hi s be li ef th at K rau se was

in to xi cat ed

, Offi cer St ewart pe rfo rm ed a pr el im in ary b r e a t h te st wit h Krau se ’s

co ns en t. The te st rev eal ed th at

, at a bo ut 7: 00 a.m ., m or e th an se ve n ho ur s aft er th e

in ci de nt

, Krau se ’s bl oo d al co ho l co nt en t was .04 5. Offi cer St ewart as ke d Krau se to

acco m pa ny hi m to th e Lak ev il le Po li ce Dep art m en t. At th e po li ce st at io n, aft er be in g

read hi s Mi ran da rig ht s, Krau se ex pl ai ne d hi s ve rs io n of th e pr ev io us ev en in g’s

ev en ts

. Krau se cl ai m ed he was u n a b l e t o rem em be r th e in ci de nt bu t rem em be red

dr in ki ng at a fri en d’s ho us e, an d of fere d de ta il s ab ou t th e ho u s e’s lo cat io n. Law

en fo rcem en t la te r le arn ed th at Krau se ha d be en se en dr in ki ng th e p rev io us ev en in g

at th e ba r of a Lak ev il le bo wli ng al le y

, th at he ap pe ared to be “ ge tt in g pr et ty dr un k,”

an d th at he w a s a d vi se d by a fri en d no t to dr iv e ho m e ba se d on hi s st at e of

in to xi cat io n. Co nt rary to hi s vers io n of e ve nt s, Krau se ha d n ev er b een at a fri en d’s

ho m e th at ev en in g.

The lo cal iz er an te nna ar

ra y w as ow ne d b y th e Fed eral Avi at io n Adm in is tra ti on

,

a fed eral ag en cy

. It was de st ro y ed by th e co ll is io n an d th e Airl ak e Airp or t op erat ed

-3

-wit ho ut a rep la cem en t fo r 12 da y s. Dur in g th es e 12 da y s, on ly pi lo ts of ai rcra ft wit h

sp eci al eq ui pm en t co ul d m ak e in st ru m en t l a n d i n g s. The lo cal iz er an te nn a arra y ’s

rep la cem en t co st was $ 11 5,3 23 .76

.

Krau se was ch arg ed wit h on e co un t of wil lfu ll y in te rfer in g wit h an d di sa bl in g

an a i r n a vi ga ti on faci li ty—th e lo cal iz er an te nn a arra y —i n vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.

§ 32 (a)( 5)

, an d on e co un t of in juri ng or co m

mi t t i n g a n y de pr ed at io n ag ai ns t an y

pr op ert y of th e U n i t ed St at es va lu ed at m or e th an $1 ,00 0, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.

§ 13 61

. The m at te r pr oc eed ed to a jury tri al

. Krau se of fere d as hi s de fen se th at he

w a s no t cri m in al ly cu lp ab le du e to vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n. Krau se te st ifi ed t h a t h e

ha d no m em or y of th e ev en ts pr eced in g th e in ci de nt

, bu t th a t he co ul d reca ll th e

i mp act of hi s car cras hi ng in to th e co rn fie ld

. Krau se ex pl ai ne d th at h e d i d n o t

rem em be r cal li ng hi s m ot he r or be in g pi ck ed up an d th at hi s fir st m em or y was rid in g

in th e to w tru ck th e fo ll owi ng m or ni ng

. Krau se te st ifi ed th at he co ul d no t rem em be r

whe re he ha d be en dri nk in g b efo re t he in ci de nt , bu t t ha t h e u nd ers to od fro m ot he rs

th a t h e h a d b een dr in ki ng at a bo wli ng al le y

. He al so at te m pt ed to ad dr es s hi s

di sh on es ty wit h Offi cer St ewart

, ex pl ai ni ng t h a t he ha d li ed ab ou t dr in ki ng at a

fri en d’s ho us e be cau se he ha d be en a bo wli ng al le y pa tro n fo r y ears an d di d no t wan t

to cau se th e b owl in g a ll ey an y tro ub le

. Krau se als o a dm it te d h e h ad be en di sh on es t

ab ou t an ot he r dr iv er be cau se he was “ sc ared of ge tt in g a DW I or DUI.” A to xi co lo gy

ex pe rt te st ifi ed on Krau se ’s be ha lf ab ou t Krau se ’s st at e of in to xi cat io n at th e ti m e of

th e in ci de nt

. The ex pe rt op in ed th at

, by ex tra po la ti ng Krau se ’s bl oo d al co ho l co nt en t

fro m hi s br eat ha lyzer te st th e fo ll owi ng m or ni ng

, Krau se wou ld ha ve be en “ se ve rel y

in to xi cat ed ” at th e ti m e o f th e in ci de nt

.

Krau se al so te st ifi ed ab ou t hi s fl i g h t t r a i ni ng

, ack no wled gi ng th at he ha d

pr act ic ed ta ke -o ffs an d la nd in gs at th e Air l a ke Airp or t an d th at hi s fli gh t tra in in g

i n c lu de d le arn in g ab ou t th e da ng ers of un au th or iz ed ve hi cl es on ru nwa y s an d th e

m ark in gs an d si gn ag e on ru nwa y s ai m ed at pr ev en ti ng un au th or iz e d r u nwa y

in cu rs io ns

. Krau se al so ack no wled ge d th at th e ho us e whe re he li ve d wit h hi s pa ren ts

-4

-was on ly fiv e m il es away fro m th e Airl ak e Airp or t. The di rect or of th e fli gh t sc ho ol

whe re Krau se ha d rece iv ed hi s pi lo t’s li cen se an d in st ru m en t-p il ot rat in g te st ifi ed th at

Krau se be ca me a li cen se d pi lo t in 20 11 an d rece iv ed hi s in st ru m en t-p il ot rat in g in

20 12

. The fli gh t-s ch oo l di rect or te st ifi ed th at a lo cal iz er an te nn a arra y is us ed in al l

in st ru m en t tra in in g ph as es an d th at an in st ru m en t-r at ed pi lo t wou ld ne ces sa ril y ha ve

kn owl ed ge of lo cal iz er an te nn a arra y s. He al so te st ifi ed th at al l fli gh t st ud en ts le arn

ab ou t sa feg ua rd in g ag ai ns t ru nwa y in cu rs io ns an d le arn ab ou t th e si gn s an d m ark in gs

on run way s t ha t m ak e ru nwa y s d is ti nc t fr om cit y st reet s.

A t t h e c l os e of th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e

ch arg e fo r wil lfu ll y in te rfer in g wit h an d di sa bl in g an ai r na vi ga ti on faci li ty req ui red

th at th e go ve rn m en t sh ow Krau se ha d act ed in or de r to in te rfer e wit h ai rcra ft in fli gh t.

Bec au se th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d no ev id en c e t o t hi s effe ct

, th e di st ric t co ur t

gr an te d Krau se ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on th a t c o u nt

. The rem ai ni ng

co un t o f in

juri ng or c om m it ti ng an y de pr ed at io n a ga in st an y pr op ert y of th e Uni te d

St at e s w e n t to th e jury, whi ch ret ur ne d a gu il ty ve rd ic t. At se nt en ci ng

, th e di st ric t

co ur t or de red th at Krau se se rv e a two -y ear te rm of pr ob at io n an d pa y res ti tu ti on in

th e am ou nt of th e rep la cem en t co st o f t h e lo cal iz er an te nn a arra y

, or $1 15 ,32 3.7 6.

Thi s ap pe al fol lo ws.

II.

Krau se fir st as se rts th at hi s co nv ic ti on sh ou ld be va cat ed be cau se th e d is tri ct

co ur t erro ne ou sl y in st ru ct ed th e jury as to th e el em en ts o f th e of fen se

, arg ui ng th at

th e jury in st ru ct io n fail ed to in cl ud e th e req ui rem en t th at Krau se was aware th at th e

lo cal iz er an te nn a arra y was th e pr op ert y of th e Uni te d St at es

. Alt ho ug h we ge ne ral ly

rev ie w jury in st ru ct io ns fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, “ if as he re st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n is

req ui red

, it is an is su e of la w th at we co ns id er de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Carl so n

,

81 0 F.3 d 54 4, 5 51 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ If we

co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n of th e st at ut e res ul te d in th e om is si on

-5

-of a req ui red el em en t of th e o f f e n s e

, w e t he n ap pl y ha rm le ss erro r rev ie w.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Und er 18 U.S.C. § 13 61

, it is un la wfu l to “ wil lfu ll y in jure [] or co m

m it [] an y

de pr ed at io n ag ai ns t an y pr op ert y of th e Uni te d St at es

, or of an y de pa rtment or ag en cy

th ereo f

. . . .” A vi ol at io n of th is st at ut e can res ul t in a fin e an d/ or no t m or e th an te n

y ears im pr i s o n m en t whe re th e pr op ert y da m ag ed ex ceed s th e su m of $1 ,00 0. W e

di sa gr ee w i t h K r a u s e ’s as se rti on th at § 13 61 de m an ds th at a de fen da nt kn ow th e

da m ag ed pro pe rty bel on gs to th e Uni te d S ta te s.

Fi rs t, Krau se ’s a rg um en t th at th e of fen se req ui res kn owl ed g e o f g o ve rn m en t

own ers hi p is no t su pp or te d by th e st at ut e’s pl ai n la ng ua ge

. “ In as cert ai ni ng th e pl ai n

m ean in g of a st at ut e, we pr es um e th at a le gi sl at ur e sa y s in a st at ut e wha t it m ean s an d

m ean s in a st at ut e wha t it sa y s.” St an le y v. Co tt rel l, In c.

, 78 4 F.3 d 45 4, 46 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 15 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ W he n th e wor ds of a st at ut e are

un am bi gu ou s

, t h en

, th is fir st can on is al so th e la st : jud ic ia l in qu iry is co m pl et e.”

Owner -Op erat or In de p. Driv ers Ass ’n, In c. v. Su pe rv al u, In c.

, 65 1 F.3 d 85 7, 86 2 (8 th

Ci r. 2 0 1 1 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e st at ut e

un eq ui vo cal ly do es no t de m an d th at a pe rs on ha ve kn owl e d g e th at th e pr op ert y

wil lfu ll y in

jure d or de st ro y ed be lo ng s to th e Uni te d St a t e s

. Alt ho ug h th e wor d

“ wil lfu ll y ” req ui res th at Krau se act ed kn owi ng ly and vo lu nt ari ly, th e te rm do es no t

rel at e to th e la tt er ph ras e: “ pr op ert y of th e Uni te d St at es .” T h e men s r e a of

“ wil lfu ll y ” m od ifi es on ly “ in jure or co m

m it ”; it do es no t m od ify or ha ve an y im pa ct

on th e wor ds “ pr o p e rty of th e Uni te d St at es .” Thi s la ng ua ge m erel y la y s ou t a

juri sd ic ti on al pr ereq ui si te : th e pr op ert y m us t be lo ng to th e Uni te d St at es fo r a pe rs on

to be gu il ty of th is of

f en se

. See, e.g

. , Torr es v. Ly nc h

, 13 6 S. Ct

. 16 19

, 16 30 -3 3

(2 01 6) (ex pl ai ni ng th at th e s t a t e

- o f

- m in d req ui rem en ts in a cri m in al st at ut e do no t

ge ne ra l ly carr y th ro ug h to juri sd ic ti on al el em en ts ); Uni te d St at es v. X-Ci te m en t

Vid eo

, In c.

, 51 3 U.S. 64

, 72 ( 1 9 9 4 ) (s ta ti ng th at a st at e-o f-m in d req ui rem en t wil l

-6

-or di na ril y be im pl ie d on ly to t h e “ st at ut or y el em en ts th at cri m in al iz e ot he rwis e

in no cen t co nd uc t” ).

Se co nd, K ra use ’s arg um en t th at th e un am bi gu ou s wor di ng of th e st at ut e sh ou l d

be ig no red is al m os t en ti rel y pr em is ed on ou r pr e v i o us de ci si on

, Uni te d St at es v.

Ban ge rt

, 64 5 F.2 d 12 97 (8 th Ci r. 19 81 ). Krau se ’s rel ia nc e on Ban ge rt is m is pl aced

.

The re

, th e de fen da nt s were ch arg ed un de r § 13 61 for bu rn in g a n Am eri can fla g. In

ap pe al in g th ei r co nv ic ti on s, de fen da nt s arg ue d th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to

sh ow th at th e fla g be lo ng ed to th e Uni te d St at es or th at th e de fen da nt s kn ew th e fla g

be lo ng ed to th e Uni te d St at es

. Id

. at 13 04 -0 5. In co ns id eri ng th e su ffi ci en cy -o f-t he

ev id en ce ch al le ng e, th e Co ur t st at ed th at th e el em en ts of th e cri m e in cl ud ed th at th e

fla g be lo ng ed to th e go ve rn m en t, th at th e fla g was da m ag ed

, an d th at th e de fen da nt s

act ed w i t h k n o w le dg e th at th ey were vi ol at in g th e la w. Id

. at 13 05

. Alt ho ug h

ev id en ce rel at ed to th e de fen da nt s’ kn owl ed ge of fla g own ers hi p al lo wed th e jury to

co nc lu de th at de fen da nt s kn ew th ey were vi ol at in g th e la w, t h e Co ur t di d no t ho ld

th at kn owl ed ge of go ve rn m en t own ers hi p is an es se nt ia l el em en t of a § 13 61 of fen se

.

See i d.

B e c a u se we ho ld th at § 13 61 do es no t m an da te th at th e de fen da nt kn o w t h e

da m ag ed pr op ert y be lo ng ed to th e Uni te d Stat es

, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t

pr op erl y in st ru ct ed th e jury as to th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of t he off en se

.

III.

Krau se ne xt as se rts th at hi s co nv ic ti on is no t su pp or te d by su ffi ci en t ev id en ce,

arg ui ng th at th e ev id en ce sh owe d he la ck ed th e r e q u i s i t e in te nt be cau se of hi s

vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n. “ W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce to su st a i n a

co nv ic ti on de no vo

, vi ewin g 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,

res ol vi ng co nf

li ct s in th e go ve rn m en t’s fav or

, an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es

th at su pp or t th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v

. M o r r i ss ey

, 89 5 F.3 d 54 1, 54 9 (8 th Ci r.

-7

-20 18 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ Thi s c o u r t w i l l rev ers e fo r in su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce 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. Thi s st an da rd ap pl ie s ev en whe n th e co nv ic ti on res ts en ti rel y on

ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Ram ire z

, 36 2 F.3 d 5 2 1, 52 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 04 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

To co nv ic t Krau se of vi ol at in g § 13 61

, th e go ve rn m en t was req ui red to pr ov e

th at Krau se da m ag ed pr op ert y , t ha t th e pr op ert y be lo ng ed to th e Uni te d St at es , a nd

th at Krau se act ed wil lfu ll y

. 18 U.S.C. § 13 61

. To pr ov e Krau se act ed wil lfu ll y

, th e

go ve rn m en t ha d to pr ov e th at he act ed vo l u n t a r i l y, in te nt io na ll y

, an d wit h th e

kn owl ed ge th at hi s co nd uc t was un la wfu l. See Bryan v. Uni te d St at es

, 52 4 U.S. 18 4,

20 1 (1 99 8) (Sca li a, J., di ss en ti ng ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at th e de fin it io n of wil lfu ll y in cl ud es

“ an act whi ch is in te nt io na l, or kn owi ng

, or vo lu n t a r y, as di st in gu is he d fro m

acci de nt al ” (ci ta ti on o mi t t ed )); Jo hn so n v. U.S. Ban co rp Bro ad -Bas ed Ch an ge in

Co nt ro l Sev eran ce Pay Pro gr am

, 42 4 F.3 d 73 4, 74 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ); Ju ry In st r. at 12

,

Dis t. Ct

. Dkt

. 89

. Bu t, as th e di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury, Krau se ’s in to xi cat io n

wou ld pr ov id e a le ga l ex cu se if th e ev id en ce sh owe d th at th e effe ct of th e in to xi cat io n

m ad e it im

po ss ib le fo r Krau se to ha ve act ed wil lfu ll y

. Ju ry In st r

. at 12 ; se e al so

Uni te d St at es v. Ken y on

, 48 1 F.3 d 10 5 4

, 1 0 6 9 -7 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (d is cu ss in g

vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n a s a d efen se to a sp eci fic in te nt cri m e).

As ev id en ce th at hi s st at e of in to xi cat io n ren de red hi m un ab le to act wil lfu ll y

,

Krau se of

fere d te st im on y fro m a to xi co lo gy ex pe rt th at Krau se wou l d h a v e be en

“ se ve rel y in to xi cat ed ” at th e ti m e of th e in ci de nt an d wou ld ha ve ha d a bl oo d al co ho l

c o n t e n t of at le as t .25

, m or e th an th ree ti m es th e le ga l li m it ; te st im on y th at Of f i c e r

St ewart ob se rv ed th e sm el l of an alco ho li c be ve rag e on Krau se ’s br eat h and op in ed

t h a t he was st il l feel in g th e effe ct s of al co ho l th e m or ni ng aft er th e in ci d e n t ;

te st im on y th at Krau se ’s fri en d ob se rv ed hi m “ dr un k” at th e bo wli ng al le y an d th at sh e

ur ge d hi m no t to dr iv e ; te st im on y fro m Krau se ’s m ot he r th at he ex hi bi te d si gn s of

in to xi cat io n im m ed ia te ly fo ll owi ng t h e c r a s h, in cl ud in g hi s di so rie nt at io n whe n he

-8

-cal le d he r fo r a rid e; an d ph y si cal ev id en ce of th e st rai gh t tra ck s of th e ve hi cl e’s pa th

,

whi ch Krau se arg ue d was su ffi ci en t to sh ow th at he was in to xi cat ed an d was un aware

of what he was d oi ng in st rik in g t he an te nn a arr ay

.

Bu t ev en whe re “ th e ev id en ce rat io na ll y su pp or ts two co nf li ct in g hypo th es es

,

th e rev ie win g co ur t wil l no t di st ur b th e co nv ic ti on .” Uni te d St at es v. Serr an o- Lop ez

,

36 6 F.3 d 62 8, 63 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. To se cu re a gu il ty ve rd ic t, th e

go ve rn m en t “ ne ed no t ex cl ud e ev ery reas on a b l e h yp o th es is of in no cen ce.” Id

. (q uo t i n g U n i t e d St at es v. Bu tl er

, 23 8 F.3 d 10 01

, 10 04 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )). Alt ho ug h

Krau se pr es en te d ev id en ce of in to xi cat io n, th e jury was pe rm i t t e d t o di sc red it th e

h yp o t h es is th at Krau se was so in to xi cat ed he co ul d no t act wil lfu ll y in fav or o f t h e

co nc lu si on th at Krau se wil lfu ll y de st ro y ed th e an te nn a arr ay

.

Eve n co n s i d e rin g th e ev id en ce of Krau se ’s in to xi cat io n, su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

su pp o r ts th e jury’ s co nc lu si on

, be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, th at Krau se act ed wil lfu ll y

in dr iv in g hi s car in to th e lo cal i z er an te nn a arra y

. The jury he ard ev id en ce of

Krau se ’s pr ev io us fli gh t tra in in g; hi s kn owl ed ge o f ai rcra ft an d ai r tra ffi c co nt ro l,

in st ru m en ta l flyin g, ai r na vi ga ti on

, an d as so ci at ed eq ui pm en t; ev id en ce of Krau se ’s

fam il ia rit y wit h ru nwa y m ark in gs an d hi s kn owl ed ge of t h e d a n g e r s of cars on

ru nwa y s; te st im on y th a t K r a u s e ha d to le av e a pa ve d ro ad

, dr iv e pa st a fen ce, an d

ov er a fie ld to acce ss th e r u n w a y; t h at he co nt ro ll ed hi s ve hi cl e at hi gh sp eed s th e

le ng th of th e ru nwa y ; th at he hi t th e cen te r of th e lo cal iz er an te nn a arra y ; th at he was

ab le to cal l hi s m ot he r to arra ng e a rid e ho m e; th at he di rect ed hi s m ot he r to hi s ex act

lo cat io n whe n sh e ha d di ffi cu lt y lo cat in g hi m ; th at he cal le d a to w tru ck th e fo ll owi ng

m or ni ng in an at t e mp t t o av oi d cri m in al cu lp ab il it y ; an d th at he li ed to la w

en fo rcem en t ab ou t th e de ta il s su rro un di ng th e ev en t to a v o i d cu lp ab il it y an d to

pr ote c t th e bo wli ng al le y he freq ue nt ed

. Tak en to ge th er, Kra use ’ s ac tio ns de m onst ra t e

a le ve l of rat io na l, kn owi ng , v ol it io na l, an d in te nt io na l ac ti on s fr om whi ch th e jury

co ul d c on cl ud e th at Krau se wil lfu ll y de st ro y ed th e an te nn a arr ay

. Cf. Uni te d S ta te s

v. Tho m as

, 56 5 F.3 d 43 8, 44 2- 43 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (co nc lu di ng th a t

, un de r a

-9

-pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce st an da rd

, ev id en ce of de fen da nt ’s act io ns in carr y in g

ou t bu rg la ry

, in cl ud in g dr iv in g to sc en e an d lo cat in g co rrec t ap art m en t, an d at te m pt s

to hi de co nd uc t fro m po li ce by di sc ard in g weap on an d pr e t e n d i n g t o be as le ep

su ffi ci en tl y ne ga t e d v o lu nt ary in to xi cat io n de fen se ). W e th us can no t co nc lu de th at

no jury co ul d ha ve fo un d Krau se to ha ve act ed wil lfu ll y be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.

IV.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

.

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

-1 0-