Opinion ID: 4555704
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence Sufficiency

Text: We review de novo the denial of Iron Crow’s motion for judgment of acquittal, viewing the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and affirming if any rational jury could have found Iron Crow guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Vega, 676 F.3d 708, 721 (8th Cir. 2012). To convict Iron Crow of second-degree murder, the jury had to find he (1) is a Native American who (2) unlawfully killed Charging Crow, (3) with malice aforethought, (4) in Indian country. See United States v. Cottier, 908 F.3d 1141, 1146 (8th Cir. 2018). The evidence, when taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to convict Iron Crow: Morsette and L.T. each testified that Iron Crow started a fight with Charging Crow that led to Iron Crow punching and stomping Charging Crow while he was on the ground, and ended in Charging Crow’s death. Crediting this testimony, a reasonable jury could find that Iron Crow acted with malice aforethought–that is, with reckless and wanton behavior that he was aware risked death or serious bodily harm. See Id. Iron Crow makes much of Dr. Habbe’s testimony that Charging Crow may have died immediately after his head hit the ground, before any stomping or kicking occurred. He draws from this testimony two arguments: (1) the post-fall kicking and -7- stomping is inappropriate evidence to consider when determining mens rea because Charging Crow might already have been dead, and (2) the second-degree murder charge must fail because without the kicking and stomping causing the death of Charging Crow, the facts would not sustain a conviction for second-degree murder. The first argument misapprehends mens rea evidence. Even if Charging Crow died prior to the last punch or kick, it was permissible for the jury to use these blows, even if postmortem, to reasonably infer that Iron Crow acted with malice aforethought. See Model Crim. Jury Instruction 6.18.1111A-1 (Judicial Comm. on Model Jury Instructions for the Eighth Circuit 2017) (“In determining whether [the victim] was unlawfully killed with malice aforethought, you should consider all the evidence concerning the facts and circumstances preceding, surrounding and following the killing which tend to shed light upon the question of intent.”). Regardless of whether the acts in question occurred after the death of Charging Crow, they are still relevant as to Iron Crow’s mens rea at the time the death-inducing acts took place. With regard to Iron Crow’s second argument, the jury was confronted with a question of fact as to the timing of Charging Crow’s death. Both sides vigorously presented and argued to the jury their version of the facts. The evidence when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, that Charging Crow was alive when kicked and stomped, is sufficient to support the conviction. Because the other elements—that Iron Crow is a Native American and that the crime took place in Indian country—were also sufficiently established, the district court appropriately denied the motion for judgment of acquittal. We review Iron Crow’s appeal of the denial of his motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. United States v. Stacks, 821 F.3d 1038, 1044 (8th Cir. 2016). The motion was based on the weight of the evidence and is therefore “generally disfavored.” Id. Granting such motions “is reserved for exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.” Id. at 1045 (quotation marks omitted). This is not such a case. It is true that Morsette changed her story a number of times before testifying at trial. While the evidence contained inconsistencies, they -8- were the kind of grist that juries regularly grind in finding the facts of a case, not the type that warrants a new trial. See United States v. Clayton, 787 F.3d 929, 935–36 (8th Cir. 2015) (upholding denial of motion for new trial where jury was justified in believing witnesses despite their prior inconsistent statements).