Opinion ID: 6498152
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waived/Invited Claims of Error

Text: Wells argues that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the elements of the §§ 2241(a)(1) and 113(a)(1) charges. Wells invited both of these alleged instructional errors and has, therefore, waived appellate review of the propriety of both instructions.
Section 2241(a)(1) prohibits “knowingly caus[ing] another person to engage in a sexual act[] by using force against that other person.” Prior to trial, the parties submitted to the court a package of stipulated jury instructions. R. Vol. I at 204-41. 4 As relevant here, stipulated Instruction No. 9 provided as follows: To find defendant guilty of this crime, the government must prove each of the following five (5) essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First: that defendant caused [V.W.] to engage in a sexual act; and, Second: that defendant acted knowingly in causing [V.W.] to engage in the sexual act; and, 4 Not only did this package include sixteen instructions to which the parties stipulated, it also contained competing jury instructions upon which the parties could not agree and a single non-stipulated, non-competing instruction submitted by Wells. -7- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 8 Third: that defendant did so by using force against [V.W.]; and, Fourth: that defendant is an Indian under federal law; and, Fifth: that the act occurred within the exterior boundaries of the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation. R. Vol. I at 222. Immediately prior to the formal charging conference, the district court noted it would not take long to review the proposed jury instructions “[b]ecause many of the instructions are, in fact, stipulated.” R. Vol. VIII at 679. The district court did note, however, that the stipulated instructions “may be slightly massaged or tweaked by the Court.” Id. During the formal charging conference, the district court inquired whether either party had any objections to proposed Instruction No. 12, the district court’s version of the parties’ stipulated Instruction No. 9, and both defense counsel and the government disclaimed any objection. Thus, with only the most trivial stylistic changes, the district court provided to the jury the parties’ stipulated elements instruction. For the first time on appeal, Wells asserts the district court committed plain error in misinstructing the jury as to the essential elements of a § 2241(a) charge. According to Wells, the district court should have instructed the jury that not only did the government have to prove that Wells acted knowingly in causing V.W. to engage in a sexual act, but also that he did so by knowingly using force. Because Wells invited the alleged error, he has waived appellate review. “Under the -8- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 9 invited error doctrine, this [c]ourt will not engage in appellate review when a defendant has waived his right to challenge a jury instruction by affirmatively approving it at trial. A party that has forfeited a right by failing to make a proper objection may obtain relief for plain error; but a party that has waived a right is not entitled to appellate relief.” United States v. Cornelius, 696 F.3d 1307, 1319 (10th Cir. 2012) (quotation and alteration omitted). Wells claims he did not waive his asserted instructional error because the record does not demonstrate that his attorney affirmatively stipulated to the jury instruction. See Wells’s Reply Br. at 20-21 (asserting that the stipulated package of instructions “is not a stipulation. Mr. Wells’s lawyer did not sign it; only the government did”). This argument borders on bad faith. All the record evidence indicates the parties entered into a stipulation as to the relevant instruction. The prosecutor so attested in a filing in the district court. 5 The stipulated package of instructions submitted by the prosecutor also sets out specific non-stipulated instructions being requested by Wells, some of which the prosecution contested and one of which the prosecutor neither stipulated to nor contested. At no point did Wells file any document or raise any objection to the prosecutor’s assertion 5 Given the arguments set out in Wells’s reply brief, a member of this panel specifically asked Wells’s appellate counsel whether he was asserting the prosecutor lied to the district court when he submitted the stipulated package of jury instructions. Wells’s appellate counsel affirmatively stated he was not accusing the prosecutor of lying. -9- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 10 the parties had reached a stipulation as to the elements instruction for the § 2241(a)(1) charge. Immediately before the charge conference, Wells did not correct the district court when it noted the parties had reached a stipulation as to the bulk of the necessary instructions. In light of all this, we have no doubt Wells’s trial counsel stipulated to the § 2241(a)(1) elements charge, thereby waiving appellate review of the instruction. Alternatively, Wells asserts that because the district court made trivial stylistic edits to the stipulated instruction, he cannot be said to have stipulated to the § 2241 elements instruction actually given by the district court. This argument, too, is frivolous. The invited-error doctrine prevents a party who induces an erroneous ruling from being able to have it set aside on appeal. It is based on reliance interests similar to those that support the doctrines of equitable and promissory estoppel. Having induced the court to rely on a particular erroneous proposition of law or fact, a party may not at a later stage use the error to set aside the immediate consequences of the error. United States v. Jereb, 882 F.3d 1325, 1338 (10th Cir. 2018) (quotations, citations, and alteration omitted). Wells’s complaint about Instruction No. 12 has nothing to do with the verbiage of the district court’s stylistic changes to the parties’ stipulated instruction. Instead it relates specifically to the failure of Instruction No. 12 to apply, allegedly in error, the intent element set out in § 2241(a)(1) to both the causing-of-the-victim-to-engage-in-a-sexual-act element -10- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 11 and the using-force element. That alleged error was directly induced by the parties’ stipulated instruction. Having led the district court into the error he now identifies on appeal, Wells has affirmatively waived appellate review.
Section 113(a)(1) prohibits assault “with intent to commit . . . a violation of section 2241.” Instruction No. 13 told the jury that to find Wells guilty of violating § 113(a)(1), it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following non-jurisdictional elements: “First: that defendant knowingly assaulted [V.W.]; and Second: that defendant assaulted [V.W.] with the specific intent to commit aggravated sexual abuse.” R. Vol. I at 360. The instruction further provided that the term “‘Aggravated sexual abuse’ means the offense charge[d] in Count 1” of the indictment. Id. As noted above, Count 1 of the indictment charged a substantive violation of § 2241(a)(1). For the first time on appeal, Wells asserts Instruction No. 13 misinformed the jury because it does not specifically state that to find him guilty of the § 113(a)(1) charge, the jury had to find he had the specific intent to undertake every element of § 2241(a)(1). Wells has waived appellate review of this issue by inviting the alleged error. Instruction No. 13 is, in all material respects, identical to the stipulated elements instruction, proposed Instruction No. 10, submitted by the parties. For the same reasons set out above in concluding Wells waived -11- Appellate Case: 20-1228 Document: 010110706158 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 12 appellate review of his challenge to Instruction No. 12, he has also waived appellate review of Instruction No. 13.