Opinion ID: 6498152
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Forfeited Claims of Error

Text: Wells raises two additional challenges to his conviction on the § 113(a)(1) charge—(1) his convictions under §§ 113(a)(1) and 2241(a)(1) are multiplicitous and (2) § 113(a)(1) is unconstitutionally vague. He separately asserts the district court erred in admitting testimony from Vogel regarding the risk of death to V.W. resulting from Wells’s assault upon V.W. Because Wells did not raise these issues before the district court, and because he did not affirmatively waive them, he is entitled to relief on appeal if he can satisfy the rigorous plain error standard. See United States v. Courtney, 816 F.3d 681, 683 (10th Cir. 2016). The burden of establishing the existence of plain error is a heavy one not often satisfied. See United States v. Crowe, 735 F.3d 1229, 1242 (10th Cir. 2013). Under the plain error standard, a defendant must establish “(1) error, (2) that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Wright, 848 F.3d 1274, 1278 (10th Cir. 2017) (quotation and citations omitted). “An error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current, well-settled law. In general, for an error to be contrary to well-settled law, either the Supreme Court or this court must have addressed the issue.” United States v. DeChristopher, 695 F.3d 1082, 1091 (10th -12- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 13 Cir. 2012) (quotation and citation omitted); see also United States v. Finnesy, 953 F.3d 675, 696-97 (10th Cir. 2020) (emphasizing the rigorousness of the plainness prong of the plain error test).
Wells claims the district court erred in failing to, sua sponte, set aside his conviction for violating § 113(a)(1). According to Wells, (1) his § 113(a)(1) and § 2241(a)(1) convictions are multiplicitous, and (2) § 113(a)(1) is so incomprehensible that a conviction thereunder violates due process. Wells has failed to demonstrate the existence of a plain error as to either of these arguments.
Multiplicity occurs when two separate criminal counts cover the same criminal behavior. United States v. McCollough, 457 F.3d 1150, 1162 (10th Cir. 2006). “Multiplicity is not fatal to an indictment. Indeed, the government may submit multiplicitous charges to the jury. But multiplicitous sentences violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, so if a defendant is convicted of both charges, the district court must vacate one of the convictions.” United States v. Frierson, 698 F.3d 1267, 1269 (10th Cir. 2012) (quotations and citations omitted). 6 “If ‘the 6 To be precise, Multiplicitous sentences are not wholly proscribed; if multiple counts for which a defendant is convicted cover the same criminal behavior, our review is limited to whether Congress intended multiple (continued...) -13- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 14 same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.’” United States v. Benoit, 713 F.3d 1, 12 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932)). Based on the arguments presented by Wells on appeal, this court cannot conclude the district court plainly erred in failing to, sua sponte, vacate his § 113(a)(1) conviction. Count 1 of the indictment, which charges a violation of § 2241(a)(1), requires proof (1) force was employed (2) to knowingly cause a sex act. United States v. Martin, 528 F.3d 746, 752 (10th Cir. 2008). Count 2 of the indictment, which charges a violation of § 113(a)(1), requires neither the 6 (...continued) convictions and sentences under the statutes. We presume that where two statutory provisions proscribe the same offense, a legislature does not intend to impose two punishments for that offense. However, this presumption is not controlling if “there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.” United States v. Benoit, 713 F.3d 1, 12 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 367 (1983) (other quotations and citations omitted)). On plain error review, it is Wells’s burden to demonstrate the existence of a plain error. As to this particular claim of error, Benoit clearly demonstrates that to prevail on any claimed double jeopardy violation, Wells must demonstrate not only multiplicity, but also that there is no clear indication Congress intended to impose two punishments for the same offense. Id. Notably, Wells does not even attempt to carry this burden. This failure does not ultimately matter, however, because Wells has failed to demonstrate the § 2241(a)(1) and § 113(a)(1) convictions are plainly multiplicitous. -14- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 15 application of force nor a resulting sex act. Instead, a § 113(a)(1) charge requires proof of an assault with specific intent to violate § 2241. Wells asserts the existence of multiplicity by conflating assault and force. These terms are not the same, however, and an assault under § 113(a)(1) will not necessarily satisfy the force requirement in § 2241(a)(1). Compare United States v. Cates, 973 F.3d 742, 745-46 (7th Cir. 2020) (“[F]orce in § 2241(a)(1) is the exertion of physical power upon another to overcome that individual’s will to resist.” (quotation omitted)), with United States v. Gauvin, 173 F.3d 798, 802 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that the term “assault” in a federal criminal statute is defined “as an attempted battery or as placing another in reasonable apprehension of a battery” unless the statute specifically provides otherwise). Likewise, contrary to Wells’s arguments, it is not plain that every completed violation of § 2241(a)(1) will also constitute a violation of § 113(a)(1). Wells argues that § 113(a)(1) is a lesser-included offense of § 2241(a)(1) because any act of force under § 2241(a)(1) will necessarily involve an assault. The only authority Wells cites to support this argument is an unpublished decision holding that a defendant’s prior state-court convictions for assault and battery required a sufficient use of force under state law to qualify as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). United States v. Harrison, 785 F. App’x 534, 538 (10th Cir. 2019). Even assuming this unpublished decision could help -15- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 16 establish clear, well-settled law, Wells does not explain why this case would stand for the proposition that any use of force necessarily involves an assault, nor does he acknowledge the limited usefulness of Harrison in this context given the difference between the proof necessary to establish § 2241(a)(1)’s force element and the level of force necessary for a prior conviction to be defined as a violent felony under the ACCA. Compare United States v. Holly, 488 F.3d 1298, 1302-03 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding that § 2241(a)(1)’s “element of force does not require proof of actual violence” and “may be inferred by such facts as disparity in size between victim and assailant, or disparity in coercive power” (quotation omitted)), with United States v. Garcia, 877 F.3d 944, 950 (10th Cir. 2017) (“Reduced to its essence the ACCA requires violent physical force.”). The requirement of force under § 2241(a)(1) “may be satisfied by a showing of restraint sufficient to prevent the victim from escaping the sexual conduct,” and a jury may infer force under § 2241(a)(1) based on size disparities or coercive power dynamics, such as might exist between a sheriff and the prisoners under his authority. Holly, 488 at 1403. Wells acknowledges that “‘force’ includes a wide range of conduct,” Well’s Opening Br. at 26, but he fails to support his argument that this entire range of conduct necessarily and obviously includes, in every instance, an assault under § 113(a)(1), thus rendering it a lesser-included offense of § 2241(a)(1). See United States v. Gerhard, 615 F.3d 7, 19 (1st Cir. 2010) -16- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 17 (“The conduct described in one offense must necessarily include the conduct of the second offense to result in a double jeopardy violation.”); Benoit, 713 F.3d at 13 (“[T]he test articulated in Blockburger can be met even with ‘substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.’” (quoting Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 785 n. 17 (1975)). Moreover, he concedes that “[n]o court has applied the Blockburger test to § 2241(a)(1) and § 113(a)(1).” Wells’s Opening Br. at 27. This state of the law “generally preclude[s] a finding of plain error.” United States v. Turrietta, 696 F.3d 972, 981 (10th Cir. 2012). We therefore hold that Wells has not met his burden of showing a “clear or obvious [error] under current, well-settled law.” DeChristopher, 695 F.3d at 1091. 7 7 Given that the double-jeopardy/multiplicity issue is before the court on plain error review, and given that the burden is on Wells to demonstrate the existence of a plain error, we resolve the issue on the basis of the arguments Wells has presented to the court, and we do not address any other potential issues or arguments. In particular, we note that Wells applies the Blockburger test to § 2241(a)(1) specifically, not to § 2241(a) as a whole. Section 2241(a) provides: (a) By Force or Threat.—Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States . . . knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act—

fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (continued...) -17- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 18
Wells asserts § 113(a)(1) is unconstitutionally vague because it imposes a mental state that is impossible for a person to hold, i.e., the statute prohibits a person from specifically intending to knowingly violate § 2241. To prevail on a preserved vagueness claim, Wells would have to show “(1) that ordinary people cannot understand what conduct the statute prohibits, and (2) that the statute does not establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement.” United States v. Graham, 305 F.3d 1094, 1105 (10th Cir. 2002). Because § 113(a)(1) does not implicate First Amendment freedoms, vagueness challenges like the one at issue here “must be examined in the light of the facts of the case at hand.” United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 550 (1975). An appellant “who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as 7 (...continued) This statute might arguably be considered to set out only a single crime that can be accomplished by two different means, see generally Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016), but Wells does not even hint at this possibility. Accordingly, he does not address how the Blockburger test would apply if § 2241(a) set out only a single crime. Our resolution of his arguments should not be seen to have, sub silentio, resolved whether § 2241(a) sets out two crimes with separate elements or only one crime with alternate means. 8 To the extent Wells’s vagueness claims serve as an alternate avenue to challenge the elements instructions provided to the jury on the §§ 2241(a)(1) and 113(a)(1) convictions, those challenges are waived because Wells invited any alleged errors. See supra III.A.1. -18- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 19 applied to the conduct of others.” Vill. of Hoffman Ests. v. Flipside, Hoffman Ests., Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 495 (1982). Wells asserts as follows, without any citation to authority: “Section 113(a)(1) makes it illegal to assault another with the ‘intent’ to ‘knowingly’ cause another person to engage in a sexual act by using force against that other person. The statute on its face is incomprehensible.” Wells’s Opening Br. at 28. Although not entirely clear, it appears Wells is asserting that when a specific intent crime incorporates a general intent crime (or a crime with some general intent elements), the general intent elements continue to exist. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1) (criminalizing assault with the intent to violate, inter alia, § 2241), with 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(1) (criminalizing the use of force against another person to knowingly cause that person to engage in a sexual act). It is far from clear § 113(a)(1) operates in the fashion described by Wells. In any event, this court need go no further than the facts of the case to resolve Wells’s vagueness challenge. Mazurie, 419 U.S. at 550; Vill. of Hoffman Ests., 455 U.S. at 495. Wells’s assault against V.W. was prolonged, involved, and brutal. The assaultive conduct was unmistakably done with the specific intent to commit aggravated sexual abuse. For instance, during the attempted penetration with the wooden club, Wells asked V.W. if “that’s how it felt” when -19- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 20 V.W. was with her “little boyfriend.” R. Vol. VIII at 177. An ordinary person would understand such conduct was prohibited by § 113(a)(1). For those reasons set out above, the district court did not err in failing to, sua sponte, set aside Wells’s § 113(a)(1) conviction as “incomprehensible” or “impossible.”
At trial, Dr. Rebecca Vogel testified as to the nature and extent of V.W.’s injuries. In so doing, she testified as to, inter alia, damage to V.W.’s abdominal and pelvic regions, as revealed in medical imaging. That imaging revealed “a lot of inflammation as well as some blood” in the part of the gastrointestinal system known as the duodenum. R. Vol. VIII at 512. Vogel testified the duodenum is a particularly important part of the gastrointestinal system. 9 She further noted the danger inherent in trauma to that organ, particularly identifying the difficulty of surgical intervention and, even absent the need for surgery, risk of tissue 9 Vogel testified as follows: The duodenum is so important not only because it’s the first part coming out of your stomach and into your small intestine, but it’s also where your liver drains something called bile that is necessary for life, as well as the pancreas which helps you with digestive enzymes, insulin, and multiple other functions. R. Vol. VIII at 513. -20- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 21 damage. 10 As to complications flowing from surgery on the duodenum, Vogel noted that both death and “long-standing infection” were significant possibilities. Id. at 514. Vogel testified that the percentage of morbidity associated with trauma to the duodenum—ranging from infection to “prolonged hospitalization”— exceeded sixty percent. Id. As to the question of mortality, Vogel testified that simple damage to the duodenum (i.e., damage not coupled with associated trauma), even if diagnosed and treated promptly, resulted in death in approximately six percent of cases. She also explained that delays in treatment and/or duodenum injury with associated trauma significantly increased the chances of mortality, to as much as forty percent. 10 In response to a question from the prosecution regarding medical concerns associated with damage to the duodenum, Vogel testified as follows: One, it’s an incredibly difficult area to surgically treat. It is a large, extensive operation to be able to address injuries here. And, number two, when you look at the stomach, which has acid in it, which is a very low pH, that can damage tissues around it quite extensively, as well as the pancreas actually has very, um, toxic enzymes that can eat away at the tissue in that area. And so when you have an injury to that area, if there’s a lot of fluid, it carries a very high risk of having complications or even death if misdiagnosed or not diagnosed properly. R. Vol. VIII at 513. -21- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 22 On appeal, Wells asserts all of the testimony recounted above is irrelevant, and its admission improper, because V.W. never faced a risk of death. 11 Wells has not shown the admission of Vogel’s testimony was error, let alone plain error. As a general matter, relevant evidence is admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 402 (providing relevant evidence is admissible unless prohibited by the United States Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court). To be relevant, evidence need only have “any tendency” to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. This standard is not intended to impose a high burden to admissibility. Id. cmt. (“The standard of probability under the rule is ‘more . . . probable than it would be without the evidence.’ Any more stringent requirement is unworkable and unrealistic.” (alteration in original)); United States v. Leonard, 439 F.3d 648, 651 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Rule 401 is a liberal standard.”). “[A] fact is of consequence when its existence would provide the fact-finder with a basis for making some inference, or chain of inferences, about an issue that is necessary to a verdict,” but it only needs to have “any 11 The narrowness of Wells’s challenge—one based exclusively on the question of relevance and not in any way based on Fed. R. Evid. 403—is confirmed by his reply brief. Wells’s Reply Br. at 32 (asserting the government “set up a straw man” by raising Fed. R. Evid. 403 balancing and clarifying that the argument as to Vogel’s testimony was based exclusively on the claim her testimony was irrelevant). -22- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 23 tendency” to do so. United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1190 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotations omitted); see also id. (“The rule establishes that even a minimal degree of probability—i.e., any tendency—that the asserted fact exists is sufficient to find the proffered evidence relevant.” (quotation omitted)); United States v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (“The bar for admission under Rule 401 is very low.” (quotation omitted)). Notably, because our review of this issue is for plain error, Wells can only prevail by demonstrating Vogel’s testimony is so obviously irrelevant that, despite his failure to object, the district court should have, sua sponte, excluded the evidence. See United States v. Brooks, 736 F.3d 921, 934 (10th Cir. 2013). The jury was instructed that to find Wells guilty, it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt, inter alia, Wells knowingly assaulted V.W. and, “as a result of the assault, [V.W.] suffered serious bodily injury.” R. Vol. I at 362; see 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6), 1365(h)(3). Consistent with the provisions of § 1365(h)(3), the jury was instructed that “‘serious bodily injury’ means bodily injury which involves a substantial risk of death[;] extreme physical pain[;] protracted and obvious disfigurement[;] or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.” R. Vol. I at 362. Thus, the critical question is whether Vogel’s testimony had “any tendency” to demonstrate V.W. suffered such an injury. The answer to that question is “yes.” -23- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 24 Vogel, a trauma surgeon, testified Wells’s assault on V.W. (1) left V.W. with numerous traumatic injuries, including bruising, swelling, and bleeding all over her body; and (2) “a lot of inflammation as well as some blood in the area and swelling” in the duodenum. R. Vol. VIII at 512. Vogel testified that a duodenal injury without associated trauma, even if such an injury receives immediate treatment, carries a 6% risk of death. Critically, however, such injuries accompanied by associated trauma, such as that suffered by V.W., result in a 40% risk of death. Wells does not contend that a 40% chance that death will result is anything other than substantial. Thus, Vogel’s testimony had a clear tendency to prove a necessary element as to Wells’s guilt on the § 113(a)(6) charge and was, therefore, relevant. To the extent Wells’s brief asserts Vogel’s testimony was irrelevant because none of the risks associated with his assault on V.W. ultimately came to pass, his assertion is completely lacking in supporting precedent. Indeed, our limited precedents reject the notion a criminal defendant can escape § 113(a)(6) liability merely because timely medical treatment prevents risks associated with an assault from coming to fruition. See United States v. Whitethorne, No. 972165, 1998 WL 165167, at  (10th Cir. April 9, 1998) (unpublished disposition cited solely for its persuasive value) (“The question whether an injury is life threatening must be viewed at the time of the injury rather than, as defendant -24- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 25 argues, after medical treatment.”). This court and others have employed this same reasoning in analyzing the applicability of closely related provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Tindall, 519 F.3d 1057, 1064 (10th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Smith, 461 F. App’x 647, 649 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Young, 144 F. App’x 33, 36 (11th Cir. 2005). The district court did not err, let alone plainly err, in failing to, sua sponte, exclude Vogel’s testimony.