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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 3- 16 57

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

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.

Pat ric k B ro wn Th un de r

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 S ou th Dako ta - Pie rre

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

14 , 20 14
Fil ed : M arch 12 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, BRIGHT, an d M ELLOY, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Fo ll owi ng a jury tri al

, Pat ric k Bro wn Thu nd er was co nv ic te d of two co un ts of

a f o u r

- c o u n t in di ct m en t: se xu al ab us e of a m in or (A.C.), a vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 22 43 (a) an d 11 53 (a), an d se xu al ab us e of a pe rs on in cap ab le of co ns en ti ng (H.C.),a v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 2 24 2( 2) an d 11 53 (a). The di st ric t co ur t sen te nc ed hi m 1

to co nc ur ren t 18 0- an d 24 0- m on th te rm s of im pr is on m en t. Fo r th e reas on s de sc rib ed

be lo w, we affi rm

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

On March 28

, 20 08

, th ree m in or gi rls

, A.C., H.C., and T.C., co ns um ed a li te r

of whi sk ey at A.C.’ s ho m e. Bro wn Thu nd er, who was 26 y ears ol d at th e ti m e, joi ne d

th e gi rls

. Sh or tl y be fo re A.C.’ s m ot he r was du e to arr i v e a t th e res id en ce, Bro wn

Thu nd er dr ov e away wit h H.C. By th is t i me, t h e al co ho l ha d cau se d H.C. to

ex pe rie nc e di ffi cu lt y walk in g an d sp eak in g. Sh or tl y th erea fte r, H.C.’ s m ot he r, Fawn
Hig h Bea r, real iz ed he r da ug ht er was no t at ho m e an d cal le d A.C.’ s ho us e. Sh e sp ok e

wit h T.C., who sa id th at H.C. “ wen t of f wa l k in g al on e.” T.C. to ld A.C. ab ou t he r

co nv ers at io n wit h Hig h Bea r. A.C. th en vi si te d Hig h Bea r a n d t ol d he r th e

tru th —t ha t Br own Thu nd er h ad dri ve n a way wit h h er d au gh te r.

Hig h Bea r dr ov e to th e ho us e of Bro wn Thu nd er’s m ot he r, whe re sh e id en ti fie d

Bro wn Thu nd er in hi s car. Sh e pa rk ed b e h i n d h is ve hi cl e an d y el le d ou t, “ My

da ug ht er— I wan t m

y da ug ht er ou t of the re.” Loo ki ng in th e ve hi cl e’s win do w, sh e

id en ti fie d he r da ug ht er pa ss ed ou t on th e recl in ed fro nt pa ss en ge r se at

. Sh e po un de d

on th e win do w an d pu ll ed th e lo ck ed do or ha nd le —al l to no av ai l. Bo xe d in by Hig h

Bea r’s car be hi nd hi m , B ro wn Thu nd er sp ed of f th ro ug h th e ba ck y ard a n d e s c ap ed

wit h H.C. Hig h B ear n ot ifi ed th e au th or it ie s.

Sev eral ho ur s la te r , H

. C

. k n oc ke d on Kell y Sp ek er’s fro nt do or , an d hi s gi rlf rie nd

, Alyssa Kni gh t, an swe red

. Kni gh t cal le d H.C.’ s aunt, Je nni fe r Br ow n W ol f,

The Hon or ab le Ro be rto A. Lan ge , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of So ut h Dak ot a.

-2

-to rep or t H.C.’ s ap pe aran ce at Sp ek er’s res id en ce. Kni gh t wait ed ou ts id e wit h H.C.

un ti l Bro wn W ol f arri ve d. H.C. was un ab le to rem em be r wha t ha d ha pp en ed to he r.

W he n Bro wn W ol f arri ve d, sh e ob se rv ed th at H.C.’ s ha ir was di sh ev el ed

, he r m ak eu p

was sm eare d, an d he r sh irt an d pa nt s were st ai ne d wit h bl oo d. H.C. al so was m is si ng

a sh oe

. Afte r m eet in g wit h Hig h Bea r, th ey cal le d an am bu la nc e to ta ke H.C. to th e

lo cal ho sp it al

. Una bl e to rece iv e care th ere, Hig h Bea r dr ov e H.C. to th e ho sp it al in

Pi erre , Sou th Dako ta

.

The at te nd in g nu rs e id en ti fie d sc rap es on H.C.’ s face an d ch es t, br ui se s on he r

k n e e s , a n d a two -cen ti m et er la cera ti on on th e rig ht si de of he r va gi na l wal l

. Acco rd in g to th e ph y si ci an who te st ifi ed at tri al

, th is la cera ti on was co ns is te nt wit h

an ob ject be in g in se rte d in to th e va gi na an d no t wit h a st rad dl e-t y pe in jury. Bl oo d

was id en ti fie d on he r sh irt

, pa nt s, an d un de rwear

. No ev id en ce of se m en was fo un d

on H.C.’ s g en it al s o r cl ot hi ng , bu t a b lo od sa m pl e ret rie ve d fr om

Bro wn Th un de r’s

fro nt pa ss en ge r se at m at ch ed H.C.’ s DNA. Med ic al ex pe rts te st ifyin g at tri al ag reed

th at it was no t po ss ib le to de te rm in e whe th er th e in jury was cau se d by a pe ni s, a ha nd

, a fi ng er, o r an ot he r ob

ject.

Dur in g th e in ve st ig at io n of H.C.’ s as sa ul t, A.C. to ld an FBI ag en t th at Bro wn

Th u n d e r fir st ha d in te rco ur se wit h he r whe n sh e was th irt een y ears ol d. Th e F B I

ag en t vi si te d a tra il er co ur t pa rk in g lo t whe re A.C. rep or te d sh e an d Bro wn Thu nd er

ha d s ex . The ag en t fo un d H.C.’s m is si ng sh oe in th e p ark in g l ot

.

A t tri al

, Bro wn Thu nd er at te m pt ed to im

pl ic at e Sp ek er, a co nv ic te d s e x

of fen de r, as th e pe rp et rat or res po ns ib le fo r as sa ul ti ng H.C. Howev er, gi ve n th e la ck

of ev id en ce sh owi ng Sp ek er an d H.C. sp en t ti m e al on e to ge th er on th e ev en in g in

q u e st io n, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t al lo w Bro wn Thu nd er to in tro du ce ev id en ce o f
Sp ek er’s prio r se xu al ab us e co nv ic ti on

. In st ead

, th e co ur t lim it ed th e in qu iry ab ou t

-3

-Sp ek er to whe th er la w en f o r c e men t co nd uc te d a su ffi ci en t in ve st ig at io n of H.C.’ s

as sa ul t.

Fo ll owi ng th e jury’ s gu il ty ve rd ic t, Br own Thu nd er fil ed a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t

of acq ui tt al ba se d u p o n i n s u f f ic ie nc y of th e ev id en ce as to th e se xu al ab us e co un t

in vo lv in g H.C., whi ch was de ni ed

. Bro wn Thu nd er rai se s th ree arg um en ts on ap pe al : (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed i t s d i s c r e ti on by fai li ng to gi ve hi s th eo ry -o f-d efen se

in st ru ct io n; (2 ) th e ev id en ce wa s i ns uf fic ie nt to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on fo r se xu al ly

ab us in g H.C.; an d (3 ) th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by ex cl ud in g ev id en ce

of Sp ek er’s p rio r se xu al ab us e co nv ic ti on

.

II . Dis cus si on

A. Theo ry -o f-Defe ns e In st ruct io n

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s reject io n of [a] de fen da nt ’s pr op os ed in st ru ct io n

fo r ab us e o f d i s c ret io n, an d we reco gn iz e th at di st ric t co ur ts are en ti tl ed to br oa d

di sc ret io n in fo rm

ul at in g th e jury in st ru ct io ns .” Uni te d St at es v. Ir on i

, 52 5 F.3 d 68 3,

68 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hay es , 51 8 F.3 d 98 9, 99 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 08 )). “ W e wil l affi rm so lo ng as th e jury in st ru ct io ns gi ve n by t he di st ric t c o u r t

, ‘tak en as a who le

, fa i r l y a n d a de qu at el y su bm it te d th e is su es to th e jury.’ ” Uni te d

St at es v. Ch at mon , --- F.3 d ---, 20 14 W L 44 39 79

, at *3

, sl ip op

. at 6 (8 th Ci r. Feb

. 5,

20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. En ge lma nn , 72 0 F.3 d 10 05

, 10 11 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 )).

“ Defen da nt s are en ti tl ed to a th eo ry of de fen se in st ru ct io n if it is ti m el y req ue st ed

, is

su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce, an d is a co rrec t st at em en t of th e la w.” I d

. Howev er,

“ th ere is no erro r if th e in st ru ct io ns as a who le , b y ad eq ua te ly s et ti ng fo rth th e la w,

affo rd co un se l an op po rtu ni ty to arg ue th e de fen se th eo ry an d reas on ab ly en su re th at

th e jury ap pr op ria te ly co ns id ers it .” Uni te d St at es v. Ch ri st y , 64 7 F.3 d 76 8, 77 0 (8 th

Ci r. 20 11 ).

-4

-B r o w n Thu nd er su bm it te d a ha nd writ te n pr op os ed jury in st ru ct io n ou tl in i n g

th ree de fen se th e o r i e s : (1 ) th at A.C. fal se ly accu se d Bro wn Thu nd er; (2 ) th at th e

ev i d e n c e w a s in su ffi ci en t to pr ov e th at H.C. was se xu al ly ab us ed or , in th e

al te rn at iv e, th at Bro wn Thu nd er was th e pe rp et rat or of an y ab us e; an d (3 ) th at Hig h

Bea r fal se ly t es ti fie d th at sh e id en ti fie d he r da ug ht e r in Bro wn Thu nd er’s car. The

d i st ric t co ur t reject ed th e in st ru ct io n, reas on in g th at it was “ du pl ic at iv e of wha t

al read y [was ] in th e in st ru ct io ns ” an d was “ m or e in th e na tu re of arg um en ts to th e jury.” Howev er, th e di st ric t co ur t di d in st ru ct th e jury th at Bro wn Thu nd er ha d pl ed

no t gu il ty an d w a s p r e s u med to be in no cen t un ti l pr ov en gu il ty. The di st ric t co ur t

al so ex pl ai ne d th at

, to es ta bl is h gu il t, th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of each of fen se ha d to be

pr ov en by th e Gov ern m en t be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. The jury al so was in st ru ct ed

to co ns id er t he cred ib il it y of t he wit ne ss es in reac hi ng it s v erd ic t.

In Ch ri s t y , th e de fen da nt req ue st ed an al ib i th eo ry -o f-d efen se in st ru ct io n,

whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t reject ed

. Id

. at 7 7 0

- 71

. W e ob se rv ed th at “ [n ]o sp eci fic

in st ru ct io n was ne ces sa ry to al ert th e jur[o rs ] th at

. . . [th ey ] m us t fin d [th e de fen da nt ]

no t gu il ty if th ey ha d a reas on ab le do ub t ab ou t whe th er he was pr es en t” at th e sc en e

of th e cri m e. Id

. at 77 1. Lik ewis e, no ad di ti on al sp eci fic in st ru ct io n was nece ss ary

he re. Bas ed on th e in st ru ct io ns gi ve n, th e juro rs un de rs to od th a t th ey ha d to fin d

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at Bro wn Thu nd er se xu al ly ab us ed H.C. The juro rs al so

kn ew th ey ha d to c o ns id er whe th er th e te st im on y ag ai ns t hi m was cred ib le an d

tru th fu l. Bro wn Thu nd er’s reject ed th eo ry -o f-d e f e n s e in st ru ct io n es se nt ia ll y

am ou nt ed to an as se rti on th at he di d no t co m m it th e cri m es ch arg ed

. He was affo rd ed

th e op po rtu ni ty to arg ue th es e th eo rie s du rin g clo si ng arg um en t; m or eo ve r, th e jury

in st ru ct io ns , as gi ve n, re as on ab ly ens ur ed th at th e jury woul d c on si de r hi s th eo rie s.

Se e U n i t e d S t at es v. Freg os o , 6 0 F.3 d 13 14 , 1 32 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (fi nd in g no erro r

w h e r e t h e su bs ta nc e of th e reject ed in st ru ct io n was ad eq ua te ly ad dr es se d in ot he r

in st ru ct io ns an d th e de fen da nt ’s co un se l was pe rm it te d to arg ue th e su bs ta nc e of th e reject ed in st ru ct io n du rin g cl os in g arg um en t). Acco rd in gl y , we fin d no ab us e of

-5

-d i s c ret io n in refu si ng to gi ve Bro wn Thu nd er’s te nd ered th eo ry -o f-d efen s e

in st ru ct io n.

B. Suff ic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence

“ In rev ie win g th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

, we rev ie w th e

su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo , ev al ua ti ng th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t mo st

fav or ab le to th e v erd ic t an d d rawi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es in it s fav or .” Uni te d

St at es v. W

ri gh t

, 73 9 F.3 d 11 60

, 11 67 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). “ [T]he co ur t wil l no t di st ur b

th e co nv ic ti on un le ss ‘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.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Se rr an o- Lo pe z , 36 6 F.3 d

62 8, 63 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )). “ Im po rta nt ly, ‘[i]t is no t ne ces sa ry fo r th e ev id en ce be fo re

th e jury to ru le ou t ev ery reas on ab l e h y po th es is of in no cen ce. It is en ou gh if th e

en ti re bo dy of ev id en ce [is ] su ffi ci en t to co nv in ce th e fact -fi nd er be y on d a reas on ab le

do ub t of th e de fen da nt ’s gu il t.’” Id

. ( f i r s t al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Su rr at t

, 17 2 F.3d 55 9, 5 64 (8t h C ir. 1 99 9) ). Thi s i s a “ ve ry st ric t sta nd ard

of rev ie w.” Uni te d St at es v. Co ok

, 35 6 F

. 3 d 91 3, 91 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Bro wn

Thu nd er rai se s two su ffi ci en cy arg um en ts wit h res pe ct to th e se xu al ab us e co un t

in vo lv in g H.C., an d we c on si de r th em each in tu rn

.

Bro wn Thu nd er was fo un d gu il ty of se xu al ab us e of a pe rs on in cap ab le of

co ns en ti ng , r eq ui rin g pr oo f th at he “ en ga ge [d ] in a se xu al act wit h an ot he r pe rs on ”

who was “ in cap ab le of ap pr ai si ng th e na tu re of th e co nd uc t” or “ ph y si cal ly in cap ab le

of de cl in in g pa rti ci pa ti on in

, or co m m u n ic at in g un wil li ng ne ss to en ga ge in

, th at

se xu al act .” Uni te d St at es v. Demer y , 67 4 F.3 d 77 6, 77 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng 18

U.S.C. § 22 42 (2 )). Sect io n 22 46 (2 ) de sc r i b e s f o ur di ffer en t types of co nd uc t

co ns ti tu ti ng a “ se xu al act .” 18 U.S.C. § 22 46 (2 ). Bro wn Thu nd er was fo un d gu il ty

of se xu al ab us e by m ean s of th e se xu al act de sc rib ed in § 22 46 (2 )(C)

, req ui rin g

“ pe ne tra ti on , h owe ve r sl ig ht , o f th e an al or g en it al op en in g o f an ot he r by a han d or

-6

-f

in ge r or by an y ob

ject.” Id

. Bro wn Thu nd er al so was ch arg ed in a se pa r a t e c o u n t

o f se xu al ly ab us in g H.C. by m ean s of th e se xu al act de sc rib ed in § 22 46 (2 ) ( A )

,
req ui rin g “ co nt act be twee n th e pe ni s an d th e vu lv a or th e pe ni s an d t h e a n u s.” Id

. He was acq ui tt ed on th is co un t.

Bro wn Thu nd er co nt en ds th at no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d hi m gu il ty

of ab us in g H.C. by us e of hi s ha nd

, fin ge r, or an y ob ject, as op po se d to hi s pe ni s. In 2

su pp or t of hi s arg um en t, Bro wn Thu nd er ci te s un di sp ut ed m ed ic al ex pe rt te st im on y

th at it was no t po ss ib le to de te rm in e whe th er H.C. was ab us ed wit h Bro wn Thu nd er’s

pe ni s or wit h hi s ha nd

, fin ge r, or an y ob ject. Bro wn Thun de r as se rts th at “ [i]f th ere

was a reas on ab le po ss ib il it y th at th e co nt act was wit h a pe ni s, th en th ere was a

reas on ab le po ss ib il it y th at th e co nt act was no t wit h th e de fen da nt ’s ha nd

, fin ge r[,] or [an y ] ob ject.” App el la nt ’s Bri ef at 23 (em ph as is in ori gi na l). As un co m fo rta bl e as

it is to ch arac te riz e hi s cl ai m as a “ hypo th es is of in no cen ce,” Br o w n Th u n d e r

es se nt ia ll y arg ue s th at he can no t be he ld acco un ta bl e fo r H.C.’ s se xu al ab us e be cau se

th ere is a “ reas on ab le po ss ib il it y ” th at he se xu al ly ab us ed he r wit h hi s pe ni s an d no t

wit h hi s ha nd

, fin ge r, or an y ob ject. Thi s arg um en t, ho wev er, m is co ns tru es ou r ro le

in rev ie win g a jury’ s ve rd ic t. W e ha ve he ld th at “ [i]t is no t ne ces sa ry fo r th e ev id en ce

be fo re th e jury to ru le ou t ev ery rea so na bl e hypo th es is of in no cen ce.” W ri gh t , 7 39

F.3 d at 11 67

. Rat he r, “ [i]t is eno ug h i f th e en ti re bo dy of ev id en ce [is ] su ffi ci en t to

co nv in ce t he fact -fi nd er b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t o f th e d efen da nt ’s gu il t.” Id

.

W e co nc lu de th at th e bo dy of ev id en ce was s u f f i c i e n t to su pp or t th e jury’ s

fin di ng th at Bro wn Thu nd er us ed hi s ha nd

, fin ge r, or an y ob ject in pe rp et rat in g se xu al

The Gov ern m en t di d no t arg ue th at a p en is m ig ht qu al ify as an “ ob ject” fo r 2

pu rp os es of § 22 46 (2 )(C)

. Bec au se th is m at te r of st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n ha s no t be en br ie fed a n d b e c a us e th e cas e can be res ol ve d un de r su ffi ci en cy -o f-t he -ev id en ce

rev ie w, we as su m e wit ho ut ho ld in g th at a pe ni s is no t an “ ob ject” wit hi n th e m ean in g of § 2 24 6( 2) (C).

-7

-ab us e ag ai ns t H.C. Bro wn Thu nd er le ft A.C.’ s ho us e wit h H.C., an d Hig h Bea r la te r

id en ti fie d he r un co ns ci ou s da ug ht er wit h Bro wn Thu nd er in hi s car. He refu se d Hig h

Bea r’s de m an d to rel eas e h e r d a u g h te r, an d he sp ed away. Thi s ev id en ce in di cat es

th at Bro wn Thu nd er was al on e wit h H.C. an d had th e op po rtu ni ty to se xu al ly ab us e

he r. One of H.C.’ s sh oe s wen t m is si ng du rin g th e ev en in g of th e at ta ck ; th at sh oe was

fo un d in a pa rk in g lo t whe re Bro wn Thu nd er pr ev io us ly ha d se xu al ly ab us ed an ot he r

vi ct im

, pr ov id in g y et an o t h e r l in k to Bro wn Thu nd er. The at te nd in g ph y si ci an

id en ti fie d se ve ral in

juri es in di c a t i n g t ha t H.C. su ffer ed a se xu al as sa ul t, in cl ud in g

sc rap in g on he r face an d che st

, br ui si ng on he r kn ees , an d a two -cen ti m et er vag in al

la cera ti on

. Her bl oo d was de te ct ed on he r sh irt

, pa nt s, an d un de rwear , as well as on

Bro wn Thu nd er’s fro nt pa ss en ge r car se at

, su pp or ti ng th e co nc lu si on th at sh e was in

hi s car du rin g or aft er th e at ta ck

. Fi na ll y , no se m en was de te ct ed on he r cl ot hi ng or

ge ni ta ls

. W hi le it is po ss ib le fo r pe ni le pe ne tra ti on to oc cu r wit ho ut ejacu la ti on , th e

ab se nc e of se m en su pp or ts a reas on ab le in fere nc e th at a ha nd , f in ge r, or an y ob

ject

was us ed du rin g th e as sa ul t. W hi le it m ig ht be th at Bro wn Thu nd er e mp l o ye d hi s

pe ni s to se xu al ly ab us e H.C., th is th eo ry al on e is in su ffi ci en t to ov ert ur n th e jury’ s

ve rd ic t un de r th i s “v e r y st ric t st an da rd of rev ie w.” Co ok

, 35 6 F.3 d at 91 7.

“ [E]val ua ti ng th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d dr awin g al l

reas on ab l e in fere nc es in it s fav or ,” W ri gh t

, 73 9 F.3 d at 11 67

, we co nc lu de th at a

reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d th at Bro wn Thu nd er se xu al ly ab us ed H.C. by

us e o f hi s h an d o r fi ng er o r by any ob ject.

Bro wn Thu nd er al so co nt en ds th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to pr ov e th at

H.C.’ s se xu al as sa ul t oc cu rred in In di an co un try, as req ui red by 18 U.S.C. § 11 53 (a).

Thi s arg um en t is un av ai li ng

. Bro wn Thun de r ad m it te d at tria l th at he ne ve r le ft th e

Ch ey en ne Ri ve r Si ou x In di an Res erv at io n on th e ev en in g of Mar ch 28 or th e m or ni ng

of Mar ch 29

, 20 08

. Add it io na ll y , H.C.’ s m is si ng sh oe was fo un d at th e sa m e tra il er

co ur t pa rk in g lo t whe re Bro wn Thu nd er ha d pr ev io us ly se xu al ly as sa ul te d A.C. Thi s

pa rk in g lo t is wit hi n th e bo un da rie s of th e res erv at io n. His ad m is si on , to ge th er wit h

-8

-th e lo cat io n o f H.C.’s m is si ng sh oe , wou ld al lo w a reas on ab le jury to co nc lu de th at

H.C.’ s as sa ul t o ccu rred in Ind ia n c ou nt ry

.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d e n i al of Bro wn Thu nd er’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t

of acq ui tt al

.

C. Spek er Ev id ence

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ad m it or ex c l u d e t e st im on y fo r an

ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Jew el l

, 61 4 F.3 d 91 1, 91 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). The

Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e pe rm it a di st ric t co ur t to “ ex cl ud e rel ev an t ev id en ce 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

. . . co nf us in g th e is su es .”

F e d. R. Evi d. 40 3. Bro wn Thu nd er so ug ht to in tro du ce ev id en ce of Sp ek er’s pr i o r

se xu al ab us e co nv ic ti on in or de r to su gg es t th at it was Sp ek er, an d n ot Bro wn

Thu nd er, who se xu al ly ab us ed H.C. H owe ve r, ci ti ng Ru le 40 3 an d a co nc ern ov er

co n f u s i o n o f th e jury, th e di st ric t co ur t ex cl ud ed ev id en ce of Sp ek er’s pr io r se xu al

ab us e co nv ic ti on gi ve n th e co m pl et e la ck of ev id en ce sh owi ng th at Sp ek er was al on e

wit h H.C. The di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury th at an y te st im on y co nc ern in g Sp ek er

was be in g ad m it te d fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e of ev al ua ti ng th e su ff i c i e nc y of th e la w

en fo rcem en t i nv es ti ga ti on

.

Bro wn Th u n d e r co nt en ds th is ru li ng an d th e co ur t’s li m it in g in st ru ct io n

de pr iv ed hi m of hi s rig ht to pr es en t a de fen s e a n d hi s rig ht to a fai r tri al

. W e

di sa gr ee. In Uni te d St at es v. Ken yo n , 39 7 F.3 d 10 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ), Ken y on so ug ht

to in tro du ce evi de nc e th at hi s v ic ti m ’s care ta ke r ha d a pa st se xu al ab us e co nv ic ti on

an d a rg ue th at th e car et ak er, rath er tha n Kenyon, com m it te d th e cri m e. Id

. at 1 07 9.

The di st ric t co ur t ex cl ud ed th e ev idenc e, an d w e af fi rm ed be cau se Ken y on ’s care ta ke r

th e o r y w a s un su pp or te d by an y ev id en ce an d “ was en ti rel y sp ecu la ti ve .” Id

. Si m il arl y , Bro wn Thu nd er’s th eo ry th at Sp ek er pe rp et rat ed th e ab us e is ba se d so le ly

-9

-up on co njec tu re. The reco rd is de vo id of ev id en ce th at Sp ek er sp en t an y ti m e al on e

wit h H.C. W hi le H.C. di d ap pr oa ch hi s res id en ce on th e ev en in g in qu es ti on , Kni gh t

wait ed wit h H.C. un ti l Bro w n W ol f ret rie ve d he r. H.C. te st ifi ed th at sh e di d no t

in te ract wit h an y on e ot he r th an Kni gh t whi le wait in g fo r B r o w n Wo l f t o arri ve at
Sp ek er’s res id en ce. Th e la ck of ev id en ce th at Sp ek er ha d th e op po rtu ni ty t o ab us e

H.C. co m pl et el y un de rm in es th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on

. Mo reo ve r,

ad m it ti ng th e co nv ic ti on in to ev id en ce v ery li ke ly w ou ld ha ve co nf us ed th e jury by

crea ti ng th e im

pr es si on th at so m eo ne wit ho ut acce ss to th e vi ct im may ha ve

co m m it te d t he cri m e. Thi s l ead s u s t o con cl ud e th at th e di st ric t cou rt di d n ot ab us e

it s di sc ret io n by ex cl ud in g Sp ek er’s pr io r co nv ic ti on un de r Ru le 40 3 an d gi vi ng th e

li m it in g i ns tru ct io n. 3

Acco rd i n g l y, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ex cl ud in g

ev id en ce o f Sp ek er’s p rio r se xu al ab us e co nv ic ti on , and we affi rm

.

II I. Co ncl us io n

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

.

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

Add it io na ll y , Ru le 41 2 al so wou ld ba r th e ad m is si on of th is ev id en ce. W he n 3

a pa rty se ek s to of

fer ev id en ce th at “ so m eo ne ot he r th an th e de fen da nt was th e so ur ce of se m en , in

jury, or ot he r ph y si cal ev id en ce,” th e pa rty is req ui re d to fil e a m ot io n de sc rib in g th e pr op os ed ev id en ce at le as t fo ur te en da y s be fo re tri al an d to no ti fy th e vi ct im of th e pr op os ed ev id en ce. Fed

. R. Evi d. 41 2( c)(1 ). Here, Bro wn Thu n d er

ne gl ect ed to fil e a Ru le 41 2 m ot io n an d fai le d to no ti fy H.C. o r h e r g u a r d i a n or

rep res en ta ti ve of th e pr op os ed Sp ek er ev id en ce. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Eag le

, 13 7 F.3 d

10 11

, 10 15 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (h ol di ng 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 in ex cl ud in g ev id en ce ba se d up on th e de fen da nt ’s no n- co m pl ia nc e wit h th e de ad li ne s in Ru le 41 2( c)).

-1 0-