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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 2- 18 39

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

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.

Dou gl as W ay ne Tarn ow

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: Decem

be r 14 , 20 12
Fil ed : Fe br ua ry

8, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

A jury co nv ic te d Dou gl as W ay ne Tarn ow of on e co un t of ag gr av at ed se xu al

ab us e, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 11 51

, 11 53 (a), 22 41 (a)( 1)

, an d 22 46 (2 ). Tarn ow

ap pe al s fro m hi s co nv ic ti on , arg ui ng th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e

ve rd ic t. Alt ern at iv el y , he arg ue s th at a ne w tri al sh ou l d b e g r a nt ed be cau se th edi st ric t co ur t ad m it te d pr ejud ic ia l pr op en si ty ev id en ce an d erre d whe n it refu se d to 1

in st ru ct th e jury on a le ss er i nc lu de d o ffen se . W e aff irm.

I. Back gr ou nd

Tarn ow an d K.D. en te red in to a ro m an ti c rel at io ns hi p in Nov em be r 20 10

. In 2

th e be gi nn in g, Tarn ow was “ ni ce an d res pe ct fu l” to ward s K.D. Bu t he so on be cam e jealo us an d of

te n accu se d K.D. of be in g un fai th fu l. Tarn ow en de d th ei r rel at io ns hi p

on Ja nu ary 25

, 20 11

, whe n he to ld K.D. th at he di d no t want to se e he r ag ai n. The y
be ga n ex ch an gi ng te xt m es sa ge s a few da y s la te r an d di sc us se d ge tt in g ba ck to ge th er.

So m e of th e m es sa ge s were se xu al ly ex pl ic it

. On Ja nu ary 30

, K.D. m et Tarn ow at hi s

au nt ’s ho us e to ret rie ve he r pe rs on al effec ts

.

W he n K.D. arri ve d, Tarn ow en te red th e ba ck se at of he r car an d be ga n be rat in g
he r. Tarn ow ask ed fo r a rid e, bu t cou ld no t fin d a pl ace to go

. Tarn ow to ld K.D. to

ta ke hi m to he r ho us e , f

r o m whe re he wou ld fin d a fu rth er rid e. K.D. dr ov e to he r
ho m e, lo cat ed in a ru ral are a o n th e Red Lak e In di an Res erv at io n, an d wen t in si de

. Tarn ow rem ai ne d ou ts id e, us in g hi s cel l ph on e. He en te red K.D.’ s ho m e a few

m in ut es lat er.

Acco rd in g t o K.D., Tarn ow was an gr y :

[H]e ke pt as ki ng m e if th ere was so m et hi ng I ha d to te ll hi m an d

. . . I
ke pt te ll in g hi m no

. He wou ld as k m e is th ere so m et hi ng th at I di d ov er th e pa st week th at I ne ed to te ll hi m an d I to ld hi m no

. A n d h e ke pt

rep eat in g o r as ki ng m e th os e q ue st io ns ov er an d o ve r.

The Hon or ab le Mi ch ael J. Dav is

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1

th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.

Alt ho ug h th e vi ct im of th is of fen se is no t a m in or , we ha ve el ect ed to id en ti fy 2

he r by us e o f in it ia ls rat he r th an by her fu ll na m e.

-2

-Tarn ow th en wen t beh in d K.D. an d wrapp ed hi s arm s arou nd he r, sq ue ezi ng he r rib

cag e s o t i g h t l y th at sh e th ou gh t he r rib s m ig ht br eak

. “ I fel t li ke I was ge tt in g

cru sh ed .” Tarn ow th en sl am m ed K.D. on to he r be d, re p e a t e d l y a s ki ng he r if th ere

was so m et hi ng sh e n eed ed to tel l h im . K.D. res po nd ed th at th ere was no t.

K.D. as ke d Tarn ow to le av e an d of fere d hi m m on ey

. Tarn ow refu se d to le av e,

sa y in g (al th ou gh no t in su ch refi ne d te rm s) th at he was s e x u a l ly aro us ed an d

de m an di ng th at K.D. pe rfo rm or al se x on hi m

. Afte r Tarn ow rip pe d of f he r ta nk to p

an d br a, K.D. co m

pl ie d wit h Tarn ow’s de m an d, ex pl ai ni ng at tri al th at “ I di dn ’t wan t

th e te rro ri z i n g t o c o nt in ue

. I was sc ared

. I jus t di d as I was to ld be cau se I wan te d

ev erythi ng to st op .” Afte rward s, Tarn ow la y on K.D.’ s b ed , pu ll in g h er ag ai ns t h is

c he st

. K.D. te st ifi ed th at sh e co ul d no t m ov e, so sh e rem ai ne d in be d w i t h h i m.

Tarn ow to ld K.D. “ no t to to uc h th e ph on e.” Fear fu l of Tarn ow, K.D. di d no t cal l th e

po li ce an d d id no t ac ti va te he r ho m e se cu rit y syste m

.

The ne xt m or ni ng , K.D. go t up to go to wor k. Tarn ow ke pt a watc hf ul ey e on
he r an d ag ai n or de red K.D. no t t o t o u c h t h e ph on e. Sh e co m pl ie d. Tarn ow

ap ol og iz ed fo r ha vi ng sq ue ezed he r. K.D. rep li ed

, “ Let’s f o r g e t ab ou t it [,]”

ex pl ai ni ng to th e jury t ha t sh e “ jus t wan te d to ge t ou t of th ere.” Tarn ow wou ld no t

al lo w K.D. to go to wor k

, s a yi ng , “ [L]et’s st art th e m or ni ng rig ht .” At Tarn ow’s

req ue st

, K.D. rem ov ed he r jean s an d sh irt

. Tarn ow t h e n rip pe d of f he r br a an d

un de rwear , cl im

be d on to p of he r, an d en ga ge d in va gi na l in te rco ur se

. K.D. te st ifi ed

th at al th ou gh sh e d id no t wan t t o h av e se x wi th Tarn ow, s he di d wh at sh e was to ld

,

sa y in g, “ I was to o sca red to

. . . I was s care d o f a rep eat of wh at ha pp en ed th e ni gh t

be fo re.”

Tarn ow be cam e jealo us ag ai n, ei th er du rin g o r aft er se x, an d res um ed

qu es ti on in g K.D. He gr ab be d a TV rem ot e co nt ro l an d sh ov ed it in to K.D.’ s va gi na

. He “ jus t ke pt pu sh in g an d pu sh i ng it fu rth er an d I sc ream ed an d to ld hi m to st op .”

K.D. ble d a s a r es ul t o f th e at ta ck

.

-3

-Tarn ow th en be at K

. D

., th ro win g he r he ad fir st on to th e ti le flo or , st om pi ng , ki ck in g, el bo win g, an d pu nc hi ng he r. W he n sh e tri ed to st an d up

, Tarn ow el bo wed

he r in th e ne ck un ti l sh e dr op pe d to th e flo or

. He pi nn ed he r do wn an d sl am m ed he r

face on to th e ti le , cau si ng he r ch in to sp li t o pe n a nd bl eed

.

At some po in t th erea fte r, Tarn ow d eci de d t ha t th ey ne ed ed to go to th e cl in ic

to be te st ed fo r se xu al ly tra ns m it te d di se as es , as well as ot he r co m m un ic ab le di se as es

. He ha d K.D. dr iv e to a cl in ic in Bem id ji, Mi nn es ot a, so m e 30 m il es away fro m K.D.’ s
ho m e. Dur in g th e dr iv e, Tarn ow co nt in ue d to accu se K.D. of be in g un fai th fu l. K.D.

te st ifi ed th at Tarn ow was “ ran ti ng an d rav in g” an d th at sh e d i d w h a t sh e was to ld

.

“ I di dn ’t wan t to co nt in ue to ge t hi t an y m or e.” At on e po in t, Tarn ow gr ab be d K.D.’ s

po nytai l, to ok ou t a kn ife

, an d cu t of f a ch un k o f h e r ha ir. He th en hi t K.D. on th e
si de of h er fa ce.

W he n th ey arri ve d at th e cl in ic

, two la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers were lo cat ed in

th e lo bb y , gu ard in g an in m at e. W hi le Tarn ow was ta lk i n g t o cl in ic st aff, K.D.

st ep pe d asi de

, pu ll ed up he r ch in to sh ow h er wo un d, an d m ou th ed th e wor ds “ he lp

m e” to th e of

fic ers

. One of th e of

fic ers cal le d di sp at ch an d req ue st ed th at an of fic er
be se nt to in ve st ig at e a po ss ib le do m es ti c as sa ul t. Serg ean t Erne st Bei te l res po nd ed

to th e cal l an d t es ti fie d,

[K.D.] w a s crying

. Sh e was di sh ev el ed

. Sh e was ve ry sh oo k up

. Sh e
ap pe ared ve ry al arm ed

. Sh e ha d in juri es th at were co ns is te nt wit h be in g

as sa ul te d. I sa w l acer at io ns , c on tu si on s, swe ll in g, lo os e ha ir, br ui si ng in ot he r area s.

. . . I t to ok qu it e a wh il e fo r m e to ge t he r to cal m do wn in or de r to ev en t al k to he r ab ou t wha t ha pp en ed

. Sh e was ve ry

co nc ern ed th at I was n’t go in g to do an y th in g, th at I was n’t go in g to

pr ot ect he r or I wasn ’t go in g t o a rres t M r. Tarn ow.

A se xu al as sa ul t nu rs e exam ine r ev al ua te d K .D. an d fo un d la cera ti on s in K.D.’ s

ge ni ta l area

. Sh e al so fo un d bl eed in g an d br ui si ng on th e uv ul a, th e fle sh y ap pe nd ag e

-4

-lo cat ed in th e ba ck of th e m ou th

. Bru is es co ve red K.D.’ s bo dy, an d sh e ha d su ffer ed

a cu t on he r ch in

. Acc o r d i n g t o th e nu rs e, th e in juri es were co ns is te nt wit h th e ph y si cal an d s ex ua l ab us e th at K.D. had de sc rib ed

.

Tarn ow was ch arg ed wit h ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e, an d th e cas e pr oc eed ed to

tri al

. K.D. te st ifi ed fir st

, se tt in g fo r th th e ev en ts of Ja nu ary 30 th an d 31 st

. The

of fic er who cal le d di sp at ch

, th e of fic er w h o r e sp on de d to th e cal l, an d th e se xu al

as sa ul t nu rs e ex am in er al so te st ifi ed

. The go ve rn m en t in tro du ced th e to rn

un de rg arm en ts

, as well as pi ct ur es th at de pi ct ed K.D.’ s be dr oo m , th e un de rg arm en ts

,

an d th e TV rem ot e co nt ro l. An FBI ag en t, who ha d in te rv ie wed Tarn ow whi le he was

in cu st od y , tes ti fie d t ha t Tarn ow cl ai m ed th at he ha d ha d co ns en su al se x wit h K.D.

Ov e r Ta rn ow’s ob

jecti on , th e go ve rn m en t cal le d two wom en who te st ifi ed

ab ou t p r io r en co un te rs wit h Tarn ow. The fir st of th es e wit ne ss es te st ifi ed th at sh e

ha d m et Tarn ow at a pa rty in 20 07

. Afte r Tarn ow ex pr es se d se xu al in te res t in ot he r

wom en at t he pa rty, he ex pr es se d i nt eres t i n t he wit ne ss , who “ ki nd of b ru sh ed hi m

of f.” W he n th e wit ne ss tri ed to lea ve th e p art y , sh e d is co ve red th at he r car ti re ha d

be en sl as he d. Tarn ow to ld he r, “ Yo u ’r e no t go in g an y whe re. I sl as he d y ou r ti re.”

He th en dr ag ge d th e wit ne ss by he r ha ir in to hi s tru ck an d dr ov e he r to an ot he r ho us e.

Onc e th ere, Tarn ow gr ab b e d h e r b y t h e po nytai l an d tri ed to cu t it of f. W he n th e
wit ne ss tri ed to le av e th e se co n d h o u s e , Tarn ow gr ab be d he r, he ld he r ag ai ns t th e
wall

, an d sl ic ed he r ne ck wit h sc is so rs

. Th e w i t n e ss ev en tu al ly es cap ed

, ru nn in g

away fro m th e ho us e, wit h Tarn ow in pu rs ui t. Afte r th e wit ne ss tri pp ed an d br ok e he r
le g, Tarn ow tri ed to pu ll he r le g ba ck in to pl ace an d th reat en ed to ki ll he r if sh e to ld

th e po li ce. The go ve rn m en t al so cal le d Tarn ow’s fo rm e r w i f e , who te st ifi ed th at

du rin g th ei r m arri ag e Tarn ow ha d kn oc ke d he r un co ns ci ou s du rin g a f i g h t. At th e
cl os e of th e ev id en ce, th e di s t r i c t c ou rt in st ru ct ed th e jury th at it co ul d us e th e

ev id en ce of Tarn ow’s pr io r act s “ on ly on th e is su e of in te nt an d m ot iv e.” Ju ry In st r.

7.

-5

-Dur in g th e ch arg e co nf eren ce, de fen se co un se l req ue st ed an in st ru ct io n on
si m pl e as sa ul t, arg ui ng th at be cau se th e as sa ul t to ok p l a c e a f te r th e al le ge d se xu al

co nt act

, Tarn ow was en ti tl ed to a le ss er in cl ud ed of fen s e in st ru ct io n. The di st ric t

co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n.

The in st ru ct io ns set for th Tarn ow’s t he or y of t he cas e, th at is :

[T]hat he was in vi te d to [K.D.’ s] ho m e an d th at he ha d reas on to be li ev e he was welc om e to sp en d th e ni gh t, th at h e d i d no t kn owi ng ly cau se [ K .D.] to en ga ge in a se xu al act ag ai ns t he r wil l, an d th at he di d no t

en ga ge in a se xu al act wit h [K.D.] by th e u se of f

or ce.

Ju ry In st r. 18

. The jury fo un d Tarn ow gu il ty of ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e, an d he was

se nt en ced to 48 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

II. Dis cu ss io n

A. Suff ic ie nc y of t he Evi de nc e

Ta r no w arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t to su st ai n a co nv ic ti on f o r

ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e. W he n rev ie win g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce, we vi ew

th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e jury’ s ve rd ic t an d acce pt 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. And ers on , 57 0 F.3 d 10 25

, 10 29
(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W e wil l rev ers e on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d Tarn ow

gu il ty bey on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Id . Becau se Tarn ow d id no t m ov e fo r jud gm en t

of acq ui tt al , we rev ie w th e d is tri ct co ur t’s en try of jud gm en t fo r pl ai n e rro r. Id.

To co n v i c t a de fen da nt of ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e un de r 18 U.S.C.
§§ 22 41 (a)( 1) an d 11 53

, th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at

“ (1 ) th e de fen da nt di d kn owi ng ly cau se an d att em pt to cau se an ot he r to en ga ge in a

se xu al act

, (2 ) by th e us e of fo rce or th reat of fo rce, (3 ) th e de fen da nt is an In di an , an d

-6

-(4 ) th e o ffen se oc cu rred in Ind ia n C ou nt ry .” Uni te d S ta te s v . You ng m an , 48 1 F .3d

10 15

, 10 20 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Tarn ow st ip ul at ed th at he is an In di an an d th at th e ev en ts

oc cu rred on In di an la nd

. Acco rd in gl y , Tarn ow di sp ut ed on ly th at he ha d kn owi ng ly

cau se d K.D. to en ga ge in a se xu al act an d th at he ha d do ne so by th e us e of fo rce or

th e th reat en ed us e o f fo rce.

Tarn ow arg ue s th at K.D. ex ag ge rat ed th e fact s an d th at sh e “ pr ac t i cal ly

ab du ct ed [h im ] fo r se x th at ni gh t.” App el la nt ’s Br. 8. He co nc ed es th at he as sa ul te d

K.D., bu t arg ue s th at th e jury sh ou ld ha ve di st in gu is h e d t h e n on co ns en su al act s of

as sa ul t fro m th e co ns en su al se xu al act s. He po in ts to ev id en ce of th ei r co nv ers at io n

v ia te xt m es sa ge s, du rin g whi ch th ey di sc us se d rek in dl in g th ei r rel at io ns hi p, ei t h e r
sh or t o r lo ng ter m

.

Tarn ow’s arg um en t se ts fo rth hi s th eo ry of th e cas e, bu t it do es no t un de rm in e

th e ev id en ce in su pp or t of hi s co nv ic ti on

. A reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th at Tarn ow

us ed th e th reat of fo rce an d act ua l fo rce to cau se K.D. to en ga ge in se xu al act s. The

ev id en ce sh owe d th at th e p hysic al an d sex ua l abu se oc cu rred ei th er sim ul ta ne ou sl y

or ve ry cl os e in t i me, wit h th e vi ct im fear in g fu rth er ph y si cal ab us e if sh e di d no t

su bm it to Tarn ow’s de m an ds

. As reco un te d ab ov e, K.D. t es ti fie d th at sh e en ga ge d

in or al an d va gi na l se x on ly be cau se sh e “ di dn ’t wan t th e te rro riz in g to co nt i n u e

. ”

Ph y si cal an d ph ot og rap hi c ev id en ce co rro bo rat ed K.D.’ s te st im on y th at Tarn ow ha d
rip pe d he r un de rg arm en ts fro m he r bo dy. The jury he ard th e nu rs e’s te st im on y th at

th e la cera ti on s on K.D.’ s ge ni ta ls an d th e br ui si ng on he r uv ul a were co ns is te nt wit h

t h e se xu al ab us e K.D. ha d de sc rib ed

. The nu rs e ch arac te riz ed th e in jury to K

. D

. ’s

uv ul a as “ ve ry un us ua l” an d cau se d by so m e th in g be in g fo rced in to K.D.’ s m ou th

. A reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th at Tarn ow’s act of fo rci bl y in se rt i n g a TV rem ot e

co nt ro l un it in to K.D.’ s va gi na sa ti sf ie d th e di sp ut ed el em en ts of ag gr av at ed se xu al

ab us e. A ph ot og rap h sh owe d th e rem ot e co nt ro l, an d an ot he r sh owe d dr op s of bl oo d

on K.D.’ s sh eet s. The nu rs e’s a n d Serg ean t Bei te l’s te st im on y reg ard in g th e ot he r

-7

-in

juri es to K.D.’ s bo dy co rro bo rat ed K.D.’ s de s c r i p t i on of th e be at in gs sh e ha d

su ffer ed at Tar no w’ s h an ds

.

Tarn ow ack no wled ge s th at hi s ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce “ is

rel eg at ed to an at ta ck on th e te st im on y of [th e vi c t i m].” App el la nt ’s Br. 8. In

rev ie win g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce, ho wev er, we do no t rev ie w th e cred ib il it y
of th e wit ne ss es

. “ It is th e fu nc ti on of th e jury, no t an ap pe ll at e co ur t, to

. . . jud ge th e
cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es

. Su ch cred ib il it y fin d in gs are vi rtu al ly un rev ie wab le on

ap pe al .” Uni te d S t a te s v. Man n, 70 1 F.3 d 27 4, 29 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io ns an d ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Su ffi ce it to sa y th at

, as de sc rib ed in de ta il ab ov e,

th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t t ria l was su ffi ci en t t o s us ta in Tarn ow’s co nv ic ti on

.

B. Evi de nt ia ry

Ch al le ng e

Tarn ow arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in al lo win g th e te st im on y reg ard in g

Tarn ow’s pr io r ba d ac t s. He co nt en ds th at th e ev id en ce was no t pr ob at iv e an d th at

ev en if it was , i t was to o pr ejud ic ia l to be ad m it te d. W e rev ie w e vi de nt ia ry ru li ng s

fo r a b u se of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Bru m fie ld

, 68 6 F.3 d 96 0, 96 2 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 ).

Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 4( b) “ pr oh ib it s th e ad m is si on o f ev id en ce of a
de fe n d a n t ’s p r i or ba d act s to pr ov e ch arac te r or pr op en si ty to co m m it cri m e, bu t it

pe r mi t s su ch ev id en ce fo r ot he r pu rp os es ,” su ch as to pr ov e in te nt an d m ot iv e.

Bru m fie ld

, 68 6 F.3 d at 96 3. To be ad m is si bl e, th e ev id en ce m us t be “ pr ob at iv e of a

m at eri al is su e ot he r th an ch arac te r” an d “ si m il ar in ki nd an d reas on ab ly cl os e in ti m e

to th e cri m e ch arg ed .” I d

. ( ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Mo reo ve r, “ [t]he pr os ecu ti on m us t

pr es en t su ffi ci e nt ev id en ce fro m whi ch a jury co ul d fin d by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e

ev id en ce th at th e pr io r a c t oc cu rred .” Id

. A di st ric t co ur t m ay 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 t a n t i a l ly ou twei gh ed by th e da ng er of un fai r

pr ejud ic e. Fed . R. Evi d. 4 03

.

-8

-Tarn ow pl aced hi s st at e of m in d at is su e whe n he de ni ed “ kn owi ng ly cau s[ in g]

[K.D.] to en ga ge in a se xu al act ag ai ns t he r wil l” an d “ by th e us e of fo rce.” Ju ry

In st r. 18

. The fir st wit ne ss ’s t es ti m on y was rel ev an t to sh ow th at Tarn ow in te nd ed

to us e fo rce or th e th reat of f o rce to su bd ue an d co nt ro l K.D. The in te nt was

ex em pl ifi ed by Tarn ow’s dr ag gi ng th e wit ne ss by he r ha ir to hi s tru ck an d dr iv in g he r

to a se co nd lo cat io n ag ai ns t he r w i ll aft er sh e ha d de cl in ed hi s ad va nc es

. Tarn ow

th en us ed fo rce t o s u b d u e th e wit ne ss whe n sh e de fie d hi m by tryin g to le av e th e

se co nd res id en ce and th en ch as ed he r whe n s he fin al ly escap ed

. The ev id en ce thu s

was pr ob at iv e of Tarn ow’s in te nt an d m ot iv e, an d it m et th e rem ai ni ng req ui rem en ts

un de r Ru le 40 4( b)

. Any pr ejud ic ia l effe ct was le ss en ed by th e co ur t’s in st ru ct io n to

th e jury to co ns id er th e ev id en ce “ on ly on th e is su e of in te nt an d m ot iv e.” Ju ry In st r.

7. See Bru m fie ld

, 68 6 F.3 d at 96 3. Acco rd in gl y , we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t

di d n ot ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e fi rs t wi tn es s’s t es ti m on y

.

W he th er th e t es ti m on y of Tarn ow’s fo rm er wife sh ou ld ha ve be en ad m it te d

pr es en ts a cl os er qu e s t i o n

. Any erro r in it s ad m is si on , ho wev er, was ha rm le ss , in

li gh t of th e ov erwh el m in g ev id en ce ag ai ns t Tarn ow an d th e li m it in g in st ru ct io n gi ve n

to th e jury. See Uni te d St at es v. C r e n s h a w , 35 9 F.3 d 97 7, 10 03 -0 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )
(“ An ev id en ti ary erro r is ha rm le ss if, aft er rev ie win g th e en ti re reco rd

, we de te rm in e

th at th e su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s of th e de fen da nt were un affe ct ed

, an d th at th e erro r di d no t

i n f l u e nc e or ha d on ly a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t.”) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d

ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

C. Ju ry Ins tru ct io n

Tarn ow ar gu es th at he was e nt it le d t o a n in st ru ct io n on th e o ffen se of s im pl e

as sa ul t. “ [T]he de fen da nt is en ti tl ed to an in st ru ct io n on a le ss er in cl ud ed of fen se if

th e ev id en ce wou ld pe rm it a jury rat io na ll y to fin d hi m gu il ty of th e le ss er of fen se an d

acq ui t hi m of th e gr eat er.” Uni te d Stat es v. Po nc e, No. 11 -2 67 1, 20 13 W L 17 39 67

,
at *3 (8 th Ci r. Ja n. 17

, 20 13 ) (q uo ti n g K e e b le v. Uni te d St at es , 41 2 U.S. 20 5, 20 8

-9

-(1 97 3) ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Crawfo rd , 41 3 F.3d 87 3, 87 6 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) (pe r

cu ria m ). W e rev ie w fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n t he refu sa l t o gi ve an in st ru ct io n on th e
le ss er i nc lu de d o ffen se . Id.

W e co nc lu de th at th e ev id en ce wou ld no t pe rm it a rat io na l jury to fin d Tarn ow

gu il ty of si m

pl e as sa ul t whi le si m

ul ta ne ou sl y acq ui tt in g hi m o f ag gr av at ed se xu al

as sa ul t. Ta r n o w c o nt in ue s to arg ue th at th e ph y si cal as sa ul t was se pa rat e fro m th e

se xu al act s, whi ch he co nt en ds were co ns en su al

. He ci te s ev id en ce of K.D.’ s te xt

m es sa ge s an d he r te st im on y th at sh e br ou gh t hi m to he r ru ral ho m e. K.D.’ s acco un t

o f th e ev en ts of Ja nu ary 30 th an d 31 st was no t co nt rad ic te d, ho wev er, an d was

co rro bo rat ed by ph y si cal an d ph ot og rap hi c ev id en ce, as well as by th e te st im on y of

t h e n ur se an d la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers

. W ha te ve r th e na tu re of th e pa rti es ’

rel at io ns hi p m ay ha ve be en up on th ei r arri va l at K.D.’ s ho m e, it so on tu rn ed vi ol en t,

wit h Ta r no w us in g fo rce or th e th reat of fo rce to cau se K.D. to su bm it to or al an d

va gi na l se x, fo rce th at in cl ud ed th e in se rti on of a p h ys i c a l ob ject in to K.D.’ s bo dy.

As th e go ve rn m en t st at ed du rin g cl o s i n g arg um en ts

, th e ev en ts gi vi ng ris e to th e
ch arg e ag ai ns t Tarn ow sh ou ld be vi ewed as a who le

, rat he r th an as in di vi du al fram es

of a m ov ie

. In de ed

, rat he r th an de p i ct in g a se rie s of di sc ret e ev en ts —ep is od es of

co ns en su al se x pu nc tu at ed by pe rio d of vi ol en ce an d th reat s th ereo f—t he ev id en ce,
vi ewed as a m on ta ge , es ta bl is he d fo r a rat io na l jury on ly a co nt in ui ty of vi ol en ce an d

fo rce, gi vi ng th e li e to Tarn ow’s arg um en t to th e co nt rary. The di st ric t co ur t th us di d

no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g Tarn ow’s req ue st fo r a le ss e r i nc lu de d of fen se

in st ru ct io n.

III. Co nc lu si on

The co nv ic ti on is affi rm ed

.

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

-1 0-