N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. HARR Y M C C A B E, Sr., De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10105

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-08135-JAT-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Jam e s A. Te ilborg, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 10, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , GR AB ER , a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. Harry M c C a be , Sr. a ppe a ls his c onvic tion following a thre e -day jury tria l of a ssa ult with a da nge rous we a

pon in India

n c ountry , 18 U.S.C . §§ 113(a )(3), 1153, a ssa ult re sulting in se

rious bodily

injury in India

n c ountry , 18 U.S.C . §§ 113(a )(6), 1153, a nd two c ounts of useof a

fire arm in a c rim e of viole nc e , 18 U.S.C . §



# FIL E D JUL 02 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.924(c )(1)(A)(iii). He c ha lle nge s the de nia l of his m otion to suppre ss a rifle found a fte r a warrantle s s e ntry into his a bode , a lle ge s fa

u lt with the

indic tm e nt, jury instruc tions, a

nd ve rdic t form s, a

nd a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt a

b use d its disc re tion in m ak i ng se ve ra l e vide ntia ry rulings. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm
. A. W arrantle ss Entry W e re vie w d

e nov o whe the r the polic e offic e rs ha d proba ble c a use to a rre st M c C a be and whe t

he r e xige nt c irc um sta

nc e s justifie d the ir wa

rrantle s s e ntry

into M c C a be ’ s hoga n, a one -room

a bode in whic h he wa s sta

y ing. Unite d State

s v . Manc i nas-Flore

s , 588 F.3d 677, 687 (9th C ir. 2009); Unite d State s v . Lope z , 482 F.3d 1067, 1071 (9th C ir. 2007). 1

“ Exige nt c i rc um sta

nc e s a re de fine d to inc lude ‘ those c irc um sta nc e s tha t would c a use a re a sona ble pe rson to be lie ve tha

t e n try . . . wa s ne c e ssa

ry to pre ve nt phy sic a l ha

rm to the offic e rs or othe r pe rsons, thede struc tion of re le va nt e vide nc e , the e sc a pe of the suspe c t, or som e othe r c onse que nc e im prope rly frustrat ing le gitim ate la

w e nforc e m e nt e fforts.’ ” Fishe r v . C ity of San J ose , 558 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba n c ) (a lte ra tion in origina

l) (quoting Unite d State

s v .

1 Although the

Fourth Am e ndm e nt doe s not a pply dire c tly

to triba l offic e rs, the India n C ivil Rights Ac t im

pose s the sam e lim ita

t ions. Unite d State

s v . Be c e rraGarc ia , 397 F.3d 1167, 1171 & n.1 (9th C ir. 2005) (c iting 25 U.S.C . § 1302(2)).

2Lindse

y , 877 F.2d 777, 780 (9th C ir. 1989)). And “ [i] nc lude d within this de finition of e xige nt c irc um sta

nc e s is ‘ [t] he ne e d to prote c t or pre se rve life or avoid se rious injury .’ ” Unite d State

s v . Ec he goy e n , 799 F.2d 1271, 1278 (9th C ir. 1986) (se c ond a lte ra tion in origina

l) (quoting Minc e

y v . Arizona , 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978)). “ The e xige nc ie s m

ust be vie we d from

the tota l ity

of c irc um sta

nc e s known to the

offic e rs at the tim e of the wa

rrantle ss intrusion.” Unite d State s v . Lic ata , 761 F.2d 537, 543 (9th C ir. 1985). He re , the polic e offic e rs we re le a d to the site by the vic t im , who ha d

be e n shot in the

he a d . The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc l ude d tha

t the polic e offic e rs ha d proba b le c a use to a rre st M c C a

be and tha

t e x ige nt c irc um s ta

nc e justifie d the ir warran tle ss e ntry

into thehoga

n . It wa s e ve ning, a

nd the re m ote are a

wa s da rk, save for the lights from

the polic e c ars. Approa c hing thehoga n with guns dra

wn, the p olic e knoc ke d a

nd a nnounc e d the ir pre s e nc e in Na v a jo a nd English. The

y he ard noise s insidebut no re sponse to the ir c a lls. The polic e sa w bloodstains on the side of the door, on a c h a ir, a nd on theground dire c tly outside the hoga

n a n d did not know the

c ondition of the

oc c upa nt of the hoga

n. The y re a sona

bly be lie ve d the vic t im ’ s sta

te m e nts tha

t the oc c upa

nt of the hoga

n ha d shot him

and wa s still arm e d with a we a

pon tha t he c ould turn on the

offic e rs or othe rs. Se e Unite d State s v . Al-Azzaw

y , 784 F.2d 890, 894 (9th C ir. 1985) (a ffirm ing wa rrantle ss e n try

whe re 3offic e rs re a sona bly be lie ve d de fe nda

nt ha d e xplosive s “ a

n d wa s in a

n a gita t e d a nd viole nt sta

te ” ba se d on unc orroborate d sta te m e nts by

a witne ss who sa i d de fe nda nt ha d thre ate ne d him

with a pistol). Given “ the re m ote ne ss” of the hoga n, “ the late night hour,”an d the dista nc e to a m a gistra te and the polic e sta

tion, it wa s “ fa ir to a ssum e that

a te le phonic wa

rrant would ha

ve ta ke n quite som e tim e to se c ure .” Ec he goy e n , 799 F.2d a

t 1 2 80. “ Unde r the se c irc um s ta nc e s, . . . thede la

y a s soc iate d with obta ining a

te le phonic wa

rrant would ha

v e unduly inc re a se d the risk . . . tha

t the o ffic e rs re a sona

bly be lie ve d to be [pre se nt] .” Id. (se c ond a nd third a lte ra tions in origina l) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d ). R e ga

rdle s s of the c ondition of the

vic t im who a c c om

pa nie d the offic e rs to the hoga n, the tota lity

of the c irc um s ta

nc e s ga ve rise to the offic e rs’ obje c t ive ly re a sona ble be lie f that the e ntry wa s ne c e ssa

ry to pre ve nt phy sic a l ha

rm to the offic e rs or othe r pe rsons, re nde r a ssista

nc e , or to pre ve n t “ som e othe r c o n se q ue nc e im prope rly frustrating le gitim ate la

w e nforc e m e nt e fforts.” Fishe r , 558 F.3d a t 1075 (quota

tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d ). As the distric t c ourt found, “ [e ] nsuring tha t the gunm a

n wa s no longe r a da nge r to the public or the polic e the m se l ve s wa s of pa ram ount im porta nc e .” This c a se is not like Unite d State s v . Gooc h , 6 F.3d 673, 676 (9th C ir. 1993), whe re the de fe nda

n t wa s a sle e p in a

te nt a nd no one ha d be e n injure d. Se e Ortiz-Sandov

al v . C lark e , 323 F.3d 1165, 1172 (9th C i r. 2003).

4B . Rifle

Se izure

“ In the c onte x t of se arc he s inc ide n t to a rre st a nd pla in vie wse arc he s, we re vie w de novo the distric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of e sta

blishe d fa c t s to le ga l sta nda rds.” Unite d State

s v . Hudson , 100 F.3d 1409, 1418 (9th C ir. 1996). Unde r Unite d State s v . Le mus , 582 F.3d 958 (9th C ir. 2009), theunre butte d, c onsiste nt te stim ony by the offic e rs tha

t the y spotte d the butt of a gun stic king out from unde rne ath a

m attre ss in thehoga

n is suffic ie nt to e sta

blish tha t the we a pon wa s visibleunde r the pla in vie wdoc trine
. Id. at 960, 964. M c C a be argue s tha

t a c om forte r bloc ke d the vie w of the rifle , but the e vide nc e to whic h he points doe s not support tha

t c o n te ntion. These iz ure of the rifle wa s a lso c onstitutiona l unde r the s e arc h -inc ide nt-to-a

rre st doc trine
. Se e Hudson , 100 F.3d a t 1419. C . Indic tme nt Whe re , a s he re , a

de fe n da nt fa ils to obje c t to a

n indic tm e n t a s duplic itous be fore tria l, we re vie wfor pla in e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Arre ola , 467 F.3d 1153, 1161 (9th C ir. 2006). M c C a be argue s tha

t C ounts 3 a

nd 4 of the supe rse ding indic tm e nt we re duplic i tous be c a use the y liste d the thre e disc re te pe na l ty provisions se t forth in § 924(c )(1)(A)(i)-(iii) in the sa m e c o unt.

“ Whe n a sta tute spe c ifie s two or m ore way s in whic h a n offe nse m ay

be c om m itte d, a l l m ay

be a l le ge d in the c onjunc tive in one c ount a nd proof of a

ny of
5those a c ts c onjunc tive ly c h arge d m ay e sta b lish guilt.” Unite d State

s v . Re nte ria , 557 F.3d 1003, 1008 (9th C ir. 2009) (quoting Unite d State s v . Urrutia , 897 F.2d 430, 432 (9th C ir. 1990)). Ac c ordingly , the indic tm e nt wa s not duplic itous whe n it liste d those provisions in a single c ount. Se e Unite d State s v . Ve la , 624 F.3d 1148, 1159 (9th C ir. 2010) (a ffirm ing a c onvic tion in whic h

a dditiona l e le m e nts of a

n offe nse we re liste d in a

single c ount). D. J ury Instruc tions Whe re , a s he re , the de fe nda nt did not obje c t to thedistric t c ourt’ s jury instruc tions, were vie w a

c onstruc tive -am e ndm e nt c la im for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . Hartz , 458 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th C ir. 2006). M c C a be argue s tha

t the jury instruc tions c onstruc tive ly am e nde d the indic tm e nt re ga rding the § 924(c )(1)(A) c ounts be c a

use the instruc tions se e m e d to c onfla te the two sta

tutory c la use s of § 924(c ) by inc luding a

n e xtra word (“ posse ssing” ) be fore the phra se “ during a nd in re lation to a

c rim e of viole nc e ,” whe n the sta tute inste a d ba

rs posse ssing a

fire arm

“ in furthe ranc e of” a

c rim e of viole nc e . Se e 18 U.S.C . § 924(c )(1)(A). The re wa s no pla in e rror re ga rding thejury

instruc t ions sinc e any e rror— suc h

a s it oc c urre d—

wa s ha rm l e ss. Unite d

State s v . Thongsy , 577 F.3d 1036, 1042–44 (9th C ir. 2009) (holding on denov o re vie w tha t e rror wa s ha

rm le s s whe re jury

instruc tion “ c onfla

t e d the two c la

use s of § 924(c ) by instruc ting thejury 6that

it c ould c onvic t

[the de fe n da

nt] if it found tha

t he ‘ posse sse d’ a fire arm (part of the se c ond c la

use ) ‘ during a

nd in re lation to the

c rim e ’ (part of the first c la use )” ); se e also United

State s v . N obari , 574 F.3d 1065, 1080 (9th C i r. 2009) (holding c onfla

ting two sta

tutory c la use s of § 924(c ) in jury

instruc tions “ did not

‘ s e riously a ffe c t [ ] the fa irne ss, inte g rity or public re puta

tion of’ the tria l.” (a lte ra tion in origina

l) (c ita tion omitte d)). E. Ve rdic t F

orm Whe re , a s he re , a

de fe n da nt did not obje c t to the ve rdic t form at tria l, we re vie w for pla in e rror. U

nite d State

s v . Pine da-Dov al , 614 F.3d 1019, 1031 (9th C ir. 2010) M c C a

be argue s on a

ppe a l tha t the ve rdic t form

for C ounts 3 a

nd 4 c onfuse d the jury

sinc e it liste d the se ve ra l wa y s in whic h § 924(c )(1)(A) c an be viola te d (i.e ., using, c arry ing, posse ssing, bla ndishing, a

n d disc ha rging a fire arm ) and instruc te d the jury

to “ c he c k a ll tha

t a pply .” M c C a

be fa ults the instruc tion for not “ e xpla in[ing] to the jurors tha t not only we re the y

suppose d to una

nim ously a gre e on guilt or innoc e nc e of the § 924(c ) c h arge ge ne ra lly , but also on the spe c ific m anne r of c o m

m itting tha

t c rim e tha

t m ay have trigge re d a

n inc re a se in the p unishm e nt for tha

t c ha rge .” The pla in e rror sta

nda rd is not m e t he re . Eve n a s sum ing tha t the instruc tions we re e rrone ous, the re is no re a l istic proba b ility that the e rror a ffe c te d the ve rdic t. 7This c a se did not turn on a distinc tion a

m o ng m ode s of using a

fire arm
— the jury e ithe r be l ie ve d tha

t M c C a b e shot W oodie or tha

t he did not. Se e Arre ola , 467 F.3d at 1162 (“ [C ] onside ring the jury ve rdic t form

in light of the

c ourt’ s instruc tions and the tria l a s a

whole , it is not like ly

tha t e rror in the jury

ve rdic t form a ffe c te d the j ury ’ s de c ision to c onvic t.” ). F. N urseBe n k o’s Te stimony W e re vie w for a

buse of disc re tion thedistric t c ourt’ s de c i sion to gra n t a de position unde

r Fe d. R . C rim . P. 15(a ) an d to de ny a m otion to c ontinue
. U

nite d State s v . Matus-Zay as , 655 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th C i r. 2011); Unite d State s v . de C ruz , 82 F.3d 856, 860 (9th C ir. 1996). M c C a be argue s tha

t the distric t c o urt a buse d its disc re tion whe n it de nie d his m otion for a c ontinua nc e so Nurse Alison B e nko c ould te stify

in pe rson a

nd orde re d a

vide ota pe d de position inste a d. W ith re ga rd to the vide ota

pe d de position, the

c ourt’ s orde r wa s not re que s te d by

one of the pa

rtie s a nd its de c ision wa s not c o u c he d in the pre c ise la ngua ge of Fe d. R . C rim . P. 15(a ), whic h a llows for depositions be c a use of

“ e x c e ptiona l c irc um sta

nc e s a n d in the inte re s t of justic e .” Fe d. R
. C rim . P. 15(a )(1). B ut, in light of the distric t c ourt’ s a

rtic ulate d c onc e rn for judic ia l re sourc e s, the we ll-e sta

blishe d pra c tic e of a llowing vide ota p e d de positions whe

n live te stim ony

would posea

ha rdship to the witne ss, a

nd the de fe re ntia l sta

nda rd of 8re vie w, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it a llowe d Nurse B e nko to te stify by

vide o de position. Se e Furlow v . Unite d State s , 644 F.2d 764, 766–67 (9th C ir.1981) (pe r c uriam ). W ith re ga rd to the c ontinua

nc e , unde r the fa c tors a

rtic ulate d in Unite d

State s v . Pope , 841 F.2d 954, 956 (9th C ir. 1988)— whic h look to the

re que ste r’ s dilige n c e , the like ly

utility of the c ontinua

nc e , the inc onve nie nc e to the c ourt a nd the o the r side , a

n d pre judic e
— the distric t c ourt e xpla ine d tha t it would be inc o nve n ie nc e d by

a de la y , a nd M c C a be fa ile d to de m onstra

te tha t he wa s pre j udic e d by

the de n ia l of a

c ontinua nc e . Se e id. at 958. Ac c ordingly , we c annot sa y tha t the orde ring of the vide o de p osition or the de nia l of the c ontinua

nc e wa s

“ arbitra ry or unre a sona

ble ” so a s to m e rit a

re ve rsa l unde r a

n a buse of disc re tion sta nda rd of re vie w. deC

ruz , 82 F.3d a

t 860 (quoting Unite d State s v . Torre s –Rodrigue

z , 930 F.2d 1375, 1383 (9th C ir. 1991)). G. Ex c ite d Utte ranc e W e re vie w the a dm i ssion of e vide nc e unde r an e xc e ption to the he arsay rule for an a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State s v . J ohnson , 297 F.3d 845, 862–63 (9th C ir. 2002). If “ we c onc lude tha t a distric t c ourt ha s wrongly a dm itte d he arsa

y , we re vie w for ha

rm l e ss e rror.” U

nite d State

s v . Olano , 62 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th C ir. 1995). 9M c C a be c ha lle nge s the a dm i ssion of a he a rsay sta te m e nt— of a

ne ighbor who te stifie d tha

t the vic tim

told he r tha

t M c C a be shot him

— unde r the e xc ite d utte ran c e e x c e ption. Sinc e the sta t e m e nt wa s m a de only

a bout thirty m inute s a fte r the s hooting, the

vic tim ’ s tra

um a wa s substa

ntia l, the vic tim displa

y e d signs of a gita tion a n d distre ss, a

nd the a dm ission wa s ha

rm le ss in light of a

ll of the e vide nc e , we c o nc lude tha t the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by a dm itting the

sta te m e nt a nd, a lte rnative ly , tha

t a dm ission of the

sta te m e n t wa s ha rm le s s e rror. Se e Le av itt v . Arav e , 383 F.3d 809, 830 (9th C ir. 2004); Unite d State s v . Riv e ra , 43 F.3d 1291, 1296 (9th C ir. 1995). AFFIRM E D

10Unite d

State s v. M c C a

be , No. 13-10105 GR AB ER , C irc u it Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt from

Part A of the m a

jority ’ s disposition. In m y vie w, the o ffic e rs’ wa

rrantle ss e ntry

into thehoga

n wa s not justifie d by

e xige n t c irc um s ta nc e s .
" The Fourth Am e n d

m e nt prohibits polic e offic e rs from m aking a wa rrantle ss e ntry into a pe rson’ s hom e , unle ss the offic e rs ha ve proba ble c a use and a re pre s e nte d with e x ige n t

c irc um sta

nc e s." La Londe v. C ounty of R ive rside , 204 F.3d 947, 954 (9th C ir. 2000). Thegove rnm e nt be ars a " h e a vy burde n" of proving e xige nt c i rc um sta

nc e s. Unite d State s v. Lic ata , 761 F.2d 537, 543 (9th C ir. 1985). The pa ne l a ffirm s the distric t c ourt’ s holding tha t e xige n t c irc um sta

nc e s supporte d the w arrantle ss e ntry

be c a u se the offic e rs re a sona

bly fe are d for the ir im

m e diate sa fe ty and the sa fe ty

of othe rs. I disa gre e . In no c a se have we he ld tha t offic e rs m ay

e nte r a hom e sim

p ly be c a use a se rious c rim e ha s be e n c om m i tte d a nd the pe rpe trator is loc ate d within. The c a se s c ite d by the distric t c ourt diffe r from this c a se be c a

use e a c h of those c a se s involve d a c le ar thre at to othe rs. Se e , e . g ., Unite d State s v. Ec he goy e n, 799 F.2d 1271, 1278 (9th C ir. 1986) (noting tha t the se arc h wa s justifie d by the pre se nc e of " a pote ntia l ly

da nge rous fire ha z ard," whic h the offic e rs im m e diate ly a c te d to
m itiga te ). Inde e d, in Unite d

State s v. Al-Az z awy , 784 F.2d 890, 894 (9th C ir.



# FIL E D JUL 02 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS1985), the de fe nda n t ha d sta te d tha t he posse sse d ille ga l e xplosive s and ha d thre ate ne d to blow up a

tra ile r park. Unlike a

gun in a hoga n in a ve ry re m ote are a , e xplosive s in a

re side ntia l are a

m ore c le arly

pose d a thre at to thesa fe ty of othe rs— y e t we found it a

" c lose que stion" whe the r e x ige nt c irc um s ta nc e s e xiste d in Al-Az z awy , id. a

t 894. Thefa c ts of this c a se are m uc h m o re sim ila

r to thosein Unite d State s v. Gooc h, 6 F.3d 673, 679 (9th C ir. 1993), whe re we re je c te d the e xiste nc e of e xige nt c irc um sta nc e s be c a use the thre at

to othe rs no longe r e xiste d by the t im e the offic e rs a

rrive d. He re , othe r tha

n m om e n ta

ry rustling tha

t c onfirm e d tha

t De fe nda nt wa s pre s e nt, the re sim

ply wa s no e vide nc e at a ll sugge s ting tha t a ny one othe r tha

n De fe nda nt wa s insidethe hoga

n, a nd the offic e rs did not te stify that the y suspe c te d a se c ond pe rson wa s pre se nt. Nor did the c irc um sta

nc e s sugge st tha

t a ny o ne e lse wa s in the hoga

n. The are a wa s re m ote and spa rse l y popula

te d, the hoga

n wa s quite sm a ll, a

nd W oodie ha d told thepolic e tha t only he and De fe n da

nt re side d the re . B e c a

use the re wa s no wa

y out othe r tha

n the single door, the re wa s no c ha nc e of e sc a

pe or am bush. B e c a

use the re we re no windows, the re wa s no c ha

nc e that De fe nda nt would shoot a

t the offic e rs through a

window. It is pure spe c ulation tha

t De fe nda nt possibly

c ould ha ve loc ate d a

nothe r vic tim

at night in this re m ote are a , brought thevic tim into thehoga

n, a nd c ontinue d

to thre ate n the 2vic t im

suc h tha t re sc u e by

the offic e rs wa s re quire d. Nor would waiting for a warran t outsidethe hoga

n, at a watc h ful dista

nc e , ha ve inc re a se d the da

nge r to the pe rsons outside

the hoga n. 1 The offic e rs fa c e d a

pote ntia lly

da nge rous situa

tion, a nd the ir de sire to e nsure the public ’ s sa fe ty is a la uda ble goa l . B ut the Fourth Am e ndm e nt instruc ts that , whe n a

pe rson re tre ats to his hom e and no longe r pose s a

thre at of furthe r ha rm , e sc a pe , or de struc tion of e vide nc e , offic e rs m ay not— without a warran t— e nte r the hom e sole ly to m ake an a

rre s t. B e c a

use the gove rnm e nt ha s fa ile d to m e e t its he avy

burde n of de m onstra

ting e xige nt c i rc um sta

nc e s, I would va c ate the judgm e nt, re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of De fe nda nt’ s suppre ssion
m otion, a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings.

1 To the e xte n t tha

t the m a jority holds tha t e x ige nt c irc um sta

nc e s e xiste d be c a use som e one m ay

have be e n injure d insidethe hoga n, re quiring e m e rge nc y a id, the gove rnm e nt wa ive d tha t a rgum e nt by

not ra ising it in the

distric t c o urt. O’ Guinn v. Love loc k C orr. C tr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1063 n.3 (9th C ir. 2007). In a ny e ve nt, the argum e nt is not persua sive for the sa m e re a sons: It wa s e ntire ly spe c ulative to think tha

t som e one e lse wa s in the hoga n. 3