Opinion ID: 1264906
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Constructive Amendment Issue

Text: The indictment charged that Stymiest did unlawfully assault Juan Hernandez, and said assault resulted in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(a)(6). The district court instructed the jury that, to convict, it had to find the defendant voluntarily and intentionally assaulted Juan Hernandez. Stymiest argues this instruction constructively amended the indictment by using voluntarily and intentionally instead of unlawfully. He preserved this issue for appeal with a timely objection that the district court overruled. An instruction constructively amends the indictment if it allows the jury to convict the defendant of a different offense than the offense charged. See United States v. Brown, 330 F.3d 1073, 1077 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 975, 124 S.Ct. 453, 157 L.Ed.2d 327 (2003). The elements of the 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6) offense of assault resulting in serious bodily injury are (1) an intentional assault that (2) results in serious bodily injury, committed (3) by an Indian and (4) within Indian Country. United States v. Davis, 237 F.3d 942, 944-45 (8th Cir.2001). An assault is not unlawful if it is justified by self-defense, a defense Stymiest asserted, which required the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did not act in self-defense. See United States v. Milk, 447 F.3d 593, 598 (8th Cir.2006); United States v. Two Eagle, 318 F.3d 785, 790-91 (8th Cir.2003). The court gave a separate instruction on the issue of self-defense. The instruction's voluntarily and intentionally language addressed the first element of the charged offense, and the separate self-defense instruction addressed the allegation of an unlawful assault. Thus, the instructions as a whole did not constructively amend the indictment by permitting the jury to convict Stymiest of an uncharged offense.