Court Opinion

ID: 9556506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 16:00:47.298513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:16.035973
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-3447
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                             Casey Lynn Crow Ghost

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the District of South Dakota - Northern
                                   ____________

                             Submitted: June 16, 2023
                              Filed: August 17, 2023
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.

      A jury convicted Casey Lynn Crow Ghost (“Crow Ghost”) of first-degree
murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(d), 1111, and 1153, and use of a firearm
during a crime of violence that caused death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) and
924(j)(1). The district court 1 sentenced Crow Ghost to serve two concurrent life
terms of imprisonment. Crow Ghost appeals, asserting the district court committed
four errors during trial: (1) when it allowed the government to present evidence
under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) of Crow Ghost’s jealous behavior toward
two other men; (2) when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal, finding the
government had presented sufficient evidence of premeditation; (3) when it sua
sponte failed to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense; and (4) when it denied
Crow Ghost’s request to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter. We affirm.

I.    BACKGROUND

       Crow Ghost and his girlfriend, Allison Archambault, had a sometimes
tumultuous relationship. Archambault’s family enlisted the help of law enforcement
when they were unable to contact Allison for several days. On December 15, 2020,
a Bureau of Indian Affairs officer went to Crow Ghost’s apartment in Mclaughlin,
South Dakota. Six or seven of Archambault’s family members escorted the officer
to the rear of Crow Ghost’s apartment and pointed to blood on the ground and back
door. After radioing dispatch, the acting chief of police directed the officer to
contact tribal housing for access into the apartment to conduct a welfare check.

       When the officer stepped inside Crow Ghost’s apartment, he almost
immediately sensed the odor of a decaying body. Entering the kitchen area, the
officer found Archambault face down on the floor surrounded by blood and wearing
only one shoe. Archambault’s other shoe was found at the threshold between the
living room and the bedroom, and her cell phone was located on the kitchen table
with a bloody fingerprint. No weapons were found near the body. While Crow
Ghost was not inside the apartment, his car was parked in front of neighbor Leslie
Confer’s residence. Additional officers were summoned to help search for Crow
Ghost. When the officers asked Confer and her son if Crow Ghost was inside, they

      1
        The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.
                                     -2-
responded that they did not believe Crow Ghost was present. Confer consented to a
search of her residence and officers found Crow Ghost hiding in the dark behind the
bathroom door.

       At 3:20 a.m. on December 16, 2020, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents
interviewed Crow Ghost. Crow Ghost told the agents that he began drinking with
Archambault at noon on Friday, December 11, 2020, and continued drinking with
her on Saturday. After an argument erupted, Archambault threw things at him,
called him names, hit him, tried to pull off his glasses, pulled his hair, grabbed two
knives from a kitchen draw, and threatened to kill him. Crow Ghost claimed
Archambault went to his bedroom closet to get a .45 caliber Sig Sauer pistol that
Crow Ghost had purchased two months earlier. Archambault inserted the clip in the
firearm, cocked it, and told Crow Ghost she hated him and wished he was dead. A
struggle ensued, the gun went off, and Archambault fell to the floor, unresponsive.
Crow Ghost indicated the shooting happened sometime around 5:00 p.m. on
Saturday, December 12, 2020. Scared, Crow Ghost left the apartment with the
firearm and drove around, eventually stopping and staying the night at his cousin’s
house. When agents told Crow Ghost that Archambault was dead, Crow Ghost
reported that Archambault had been abusive toward him, and he acted in self-
defense. Crow Ghost did not have any obvious injuries. Crow Ghost explained he
had had no contact with Archambault after the shooting because he believed
Archambault and a friend had gone to California. At the end of the interview, Crow
Ghost told the agents where the gun was located, and he gave a sample of his DNA.

       During the search of Crow Ghost’s apartment, agents did not find any knives
out of place. In Crow Ghost’s bedroom, they found a bloody pair of pajama pants
rolled up on the floor. They also found a cardboard box in the closet containing,
among other things, a handgun magazine.

      One week later, law enforcement interviewed Crow Ghost a second time.
Crow Ghost stated that he did not tell the truth during his first interview. Crow
Ghost told the agents during this interview that after Archambault had threatened
                                         -3-
him with knives, he pushed Archambault away, took a gun from the kitchen counter,
aimed the gun at her, and shot Archambault because she said she wanted to kill him.
Before this interview, one of the agents had discussed with Crow Ghost the
difference between premeditated murder and murder during the heat of passion so
Crow Ghost wanted to clarify that he had shot Archambault in the heat of passion.
Crow Ghost also reported that, after the shooting, Archambault was bleeding and
trying to leave and use her phone when he grabbed her arm and escorted her back
into the apartment.

       At trial, the forensic pathologist who conducted an autopsy of Archambault’s
body testified that Archambault died of a single gunshot wound to the back of the
head near the right ear area. The pathologist opined that Archambault sustained “a
distant wound” to her head, meaning it was inflicted back-to-front from at least three
feet away, as there was no gunshot residue or stippling on her head. The pathologist
also observed bruising on the back of Archambault’s hands. A DNA expert testified
that the blood on Crow Ghost’s apartment door was likely from Archambault. The
gun contained blood on the front sight, which consisted of both male and female
DNA. According to the expert’s testimony, it was “equally likely” that Crow Ghost
was the contributor to the male DNA as an unknown source and “very strong
support” that Archambault was the contributor of the female DNA when compared
to an unknown source. Two magazines were tested—one from the gun and one
found in a closet—and only Crow Ghost’s fingerprints were found on the magazines.

       Prior to trial, the government gave notice of its intent to present evidence
under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The notice summarized the
“other act” evidence of Crow Ghost’s jealous behavior that the government intended
to present through testimony of Archambault’s friend Joseph Ybarra. The notice
indicated that Ybarra would testify about being suddenly assaulted by Crow Ghost
while walking outside at his girlfriend’s residence on October 13, 2020. During the
assault, Crow Ghost accused Ybarra of sleeping with Archambault. The government
asserted the evidence was relevant to issues of intent and motive. The Rule 404(b)
notice was amended eight days later to include additional testimony from another
                                         -4-
one of Archambault’s male friends—Douglas Moser. Moser told the government
that he was romantically interested in Archambault, and he had planned to travel to
Arizona with Archambault the weekend she was killed. Moser was expected to
testify that in 2018 or 2019 he had offered to give Archambault a washing machine
and Crow Ghost called Moser on the phone, swore at him, and told Moser that
Archambault did not need a washing machine and to leave Archambault alone. The
government asserted the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show motive,
intent, lack of accident, and absence of mistake.

        The district court issued a pretrial ruling to counsel on the Rule 404(b)
evidence indicating: (1) it would allow the introduction of statements Crow Ghost
made to Ybarra on October 13, 2020, but not any reference to physical violence; and
(2) it would allow statements Crow Ghost made to Moser about the washing machine
and directions to leave Archambault alone. The jury heard evidence consistent with
the district court’s ruling.

        Crow Ghost testified in his own defense. At trial, he provided a third version
of the events leading to the shooting. He testified that on the day Archambault died,
Archambault accused him of having a sexual relationship with others, including her
sister, and she attacked him in the kitchen. According to this version, as Crow Ghost
tried to fend off Archambault, they ended up falling in the living room and continued
wrestling. They both eventually got up and moved toward the backdoor when
Archambault attempted to grab for knives along the way. They pushed each other
outside and Crow Ghost asserts Archambault head-butted him on the side of his face.
The pair ended up back inside the living room and, according to Crow Ghost,
Archambault then walked into his bedroom, opened the closet, and retrieved a box
from his closet which at one time had contained a gun. While Archambault was
rummaging through the box, Crow Ghost grabbed the gun, which was still inside the
closet. As they wrestled in the bedroom, one of Archambault’s shoes came off.
Crow Ghost decided the best thing for him to do was leave. But according to Crow
Ghost, once Archambault saw that Crow Ghost had gotten his car keys and was
walking out the back door, Archambault grasped his hair and pulled him back inside
                                         -5-
the apartment. Crow Ghost grabbed his gun and when Archambault tried to take the
gun away from Crow Ghost, it discharged, causing Archambault to fall on the
threshold of the backdoor. Crow Ghost dragged the unresponsive Archambault
inside the apartment so he could close and lock the backdoor. Crow Ghost changed
out of his bloody pajama pants, took his dog, and drove toward Mobridge, eventually
arriving in Kenel at his dad’s house where he stayed the night. Crow Ghost told the
jury that when he left his apartment after the shooting, he assumed Archambault was
dead.

       According to Crow Ghost, he left his dad’s house the next morning and drove
“aimlessly” until eventually returning to McLaughlin sometime on Tuesday. Crow
Ghost claimed that he did not have a key to get back inside his apartment because
Archambault had taken his only key to have a duplicate made. Crow Ghost drove
to neighbor Confer’s house because she had a spare key for his apartment. When he
arrived at her house, Confer asked for a ride to the grocery store so Crow Ghost left
with Confer without going into his apartment.

       Following the guilty verdicts, Crow Ghost moved for a judgment of acquittal
and for a new trial. The district court denied the motions, determining there was
sufficient evidence for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Crow Ghost
intentionally killed Archambault with malice aforethought and premeditation.
According to the district court, direct evidence of premeditation included: (1) the
purchase of the gun close in time to the offense; (2) Archambault was killed after
Crow Ghost twice demonstrated jealousy over Archambault’s interaction with other
men; (3) when Archambault retrieved the gun from the closet; and (4) the moment
Crow Ghost pulled the trigger. The district court outlined the circumstantial
evidence supporting premeditation, which included: (1) the abusive nature of Crow
Ghost’s and Archambault’s relationship; (2) Crow Ghost’s previous confrontation
with Moser; (3) Archambault’s intention to take a trip with Moser the weekend Crow
Ghost killed her; (4) while Crow Ghost had lived in his apartment for many years
without a gun, he purchased a gun, at most, two months before the shooting; (5) after
shooting and rendering Archambault unresponsive, Crow Ghost left her body in his
                                         -6-
apartment for several days; (6) Crow Ghost did nothing to summon aid for
Archambault, nor did he call law enforcement to report the shooting; and (7) Crow
Ghost gave inconsistent statements in an attempt to conform to the evidence that was
mounting against him.

       The district court found there was no version of the evidence under which
Crow Ghost voluntarily shot Archambault in the back of the head but did not intend
to kill her, and the jury acted within its discretion in rejecting his theory of self-
defense. Similarly, the court denied Crow Ghost’s motion for a new trial, concluding
there was no error in the jury instructions. Crow Ghost appeals.

II.   DISUSSION

      1.     Evidence Admitted Under Rule 404(b)

       Crow Ghost contends a new trial is warranted because the district court abused
its discretion when it admitted Moser’s and Ybarra’s testimony about his jealous
behavior. Crow Ghost raises three issues with the Rule 404(b) evidence: (1) the
notices were untimely; (2) the notices failed to satisfy the requirements of the rule;
and (3) the evidence was unduly prejudicial. Crow Ghost contends that without the
evidence the jury would only have heard his testimony, which points to a mens rea
less than premeditation.

       The government maintains that it provided reasonable notice when one
considers the contested evidence consisted of two brief interactions involving Crow
Ghost and Crow Ghost had an opportunity to cross-examine the two witnesses about
their potential biases or faulty memories. Rule 404(b) imposes no specific time
limits beyond requiring reasonable pretrial notice. United States v. White, 816 F.3d
976, 984 (8th Cir. 2016). Reasonable notice under the rule is a flexible standard
dependent largely on the circumstances of each case. United States v. Green, 275
F.3d 694, 701 (8th Cir. 2001). Factors a court is to consider when determining the
reasonableness of the notice are: (1) when, through timely trial preparation, the
                                         -7-
government could have learned of the evidence; (2) the prejudice to a defendant due
to the lack of time to prepare; and (3) the significance of the evidence to the
government’s case. United States v. Lindsey, 702 F.3d 1092, 1097 (8th Cir. 2013).

       Here, the initial Rule 404(b) notice was given 22 days before trial and the
notice was amended 14 days before trial. The evidence consisted of two brief
interactions that Crow Ghost had with two other men. Crow Ghost did not seek a
continuance upon learning of the anticipated testimony. He had the opportunity to,
and did, file pretrial objections to the introduction of the evidence. In addition, the
entire combined testimony of Ybarra and Moser was only a very brief facet of the
case—less than 7 out of a total of 304 pages from the trial transcript. Crow Ghost
chose to waive his right to cross-examine Moser. Ybarra testified that Crow Ghost
approached him angry and upset and accused him of having a sexual relationship
with Archambault. During cross-examination, Crow Ghost suggested the encounter
happened because Archambault sent Crow Ghost to collect money Ybarra owed
Archambault. Crow Ghost reiterated his theory when he took the stand and told the
jury that he approached Ybarra to let him know that Archambault was upset, and
Ybarra needed to start paying Archambault for bills that were due. Crow Ghost
specifically denied accusing Ybarra of having a relationship with Archambault.
Crow Ghost also denied knowing or talking to Moser, testifying: “I don’t know Doug
Moser. I certainly don’t know his phone number.”

       A review of the trial transcript demonstrates that the 404(b) evidence was
extremely brief and limited, Crow Ghost had an opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses, and Crow Ghost attempted to discredit their testimony when he took the
stand and offered a different explanation. On this record, Crow Ghost has not shown
that the three-week notice given for the Rule 404(b) evidence was so inadequate that
he suffered any prejudice, let alone sufficient prejudice to warrant reversal of the
jury’s verdict. See White, 816 F.3d at 984 (concluding that notice given one week
before trial was reasonable under the circumstances of that case). Given the
circumstances of this case, we find no notice problem.

                                         -8-
       Crow Ghost next contends the government’s Rule 404(b) evidence failed to
satisfy the requirements of the rule because it was not “similar in kind” to the charged
offense. Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion. United States v. Riepe, 858 F.3d 552,
560 (8th Cir. 2017). We review the district court’s admission of evidence under the
deferential abuse of discretion standard and will reverse only if the Rule 404(b)
evidence “clearly had no bearing on the case and was introduced solely to show
defendant’s propensity to engage in criminal misconduct.” United States v. Walker,
428 F.3d 1165, 1169 (8th Cir. 2005).

       Contrary to Crow Ghost’s insistence, “the prior acts need not be duplicates of
the one for which the defendant is now being tried because the admissibility of other
crimes evidence depends on the nature and purpose of the evidence.” United States
v. Mora, 81 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1996) (cleaned up). This Court has explained
that “[t]he similar-in-kind requirement is less important when the evidence is used
to establish motive (as compared to knowledge or the other categories in 404(b)).”
United States v. Tyerman, 701 F.3d 552, 563 (8th Cir. 2012).

       Crow Ghost admitted to law enforcement that he shot Archambault, dragged
her body inside his apartment, locked the door, and fled town for several days
without reporting the shooting or summoning aid for Archambault. Crow Ghost
gave varying accounts as to how the shooting happened. Rule 404(b) allows prior
act evidence to establish motive. The government learned that Crow Ghost had
confronted Ybarra and Moser on separate occasions because he did not want them
talking to Archambault or having a relationship with her. The prior acts were not
overly remote in time to the charged offenses. The confrontation with Ybarra took
place approximately two months before Archambault’s murder. Crow Ghost
confronted Moser on the telephone in 2018 or 2019. The interactions with Crow
Ghosts were not too remote in time for Rule 404(b) evidence. Cf. United States v.
Strong, 415 F.3d 902, 905-06 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing a general reluctance to
allow prior act evidence occurring more than 13 years before the crime charged).
The record demonstrates the Rule 404(b) evidence admitted at trial fit within the
parameters of the rule and was not introduced solely to show Crow Ghost’s
                                          -9-
propensity to engage in criminal misconduct. Crow Ghost has failed to show the
notice, or the evidence, did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 404(b).

       Lastly, Crow Ghost claims the Rule 404(b) evidence was unfairly prejudicial
because “plenty of people get jealous, but few follow that human emotion with
murder.” Damaging evidence is always prejudicial; the issue we are tasked with
resolving is whether the evidence is unfairly prejudicial. When evaluating a claim
of undue prejudice, this Court has stated that a jury “is entitled to know about the
context of the crime and any events that help explain the context.” Mora, 81 F.3d at
784. If the evidence is necessary to explain the defendant’s motive for committing
the charged offense, this Court has held that the probative value is not substantially
outweighed by unfair prejudice. See United States v. Farish, 535 F.3d 815, 820 (8th
Cir. 2008) (upholding the admission of domestic abuse evidence to prove motive for
the charged offense of arson). Before she was murdered, Archambault had discussed
with Crow Ghost her desire to travel with Moser to Arizona. Crow Ghost testified
that on Thursday he learned of Archambault’s plan to leave town the next day with
a male: “Well, she told me - - she indicated to me that she was thinking about going
to Arizona, I believe, with her friend. I don’t know her friend. I’ve never seen him
before in my life. I don’t know who he is. But she said that she was thinking about
going with him, and I said, ‘Well, okay. If you want to go to Arizona, that’s what -
- that’s your prerogative.”

       The government’s Rule 404(b) evidence provided a motive for Crow Ghost
to murder Archambault. Crow Ghost had an opportunity, and did, refute that
evidence. We give “great deference to the district court’s weighing of the probative
value of evidence against its prejudicial effect.” Tyerman, 701 F.3d at 563. While
prejudicial, the government’s evidence was not unfairly prejudicial. It was within
the jury’s discretion to weigh the conflicting evidence. We find no error or abuse of
discretion in the district court’s decision to admit the limited evidence relating to
Crow Ghost’s prior interactions with Moser and Ybarra, both men Crow Ghost had
confronted in the past and expressed jealousy for talking to or attempting to develop
a relationship with Archambault.
                                        -10-
      2.     Evidence of Premeditation

       Crow Ghost asserts the government failed to present sufficient evidence to
establish premeditation. He concedes, however, that the evidence regarding his
jealously arising from Archambault’s relationship with Moser and Ybarra provided
a motive to commit premeditated murder. Taking the facts and circumstances in the
light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, there is sufficient evidence for a jury to
draw an inference that Crow Ghost acted with premeditation.

      The district court appropriately instructed the jury that a killing is
premeditated when it results from planning or deliberation, that the time needed for
premeditation varies with the person and circumstances, and that the defendant must
be conscious and mindful of his intent to kill. See United States v. Thomas, 664
F.3d 217, 223 (8th Cir. 2011). Premeditation can be proven with circumstantial
evidence. United States v. Dale, 614 F.3d 942, 963 (8th Cir. 2010). As further
explained by this Court:

      On the basis of events before and at the time of the killing, the trier of
      fact will sometimes be entitled to infer that the defendant actually
      premeditated and deliberated his intentional killing. Three categories
      of evidence are important for this purpose: (1) facts about how and what
      the defendant did prior to the actual killing which show he was engaged
      in activity directed toward the killing, that is, Planning activity; (2) facts
      about the defendant’s prior relationship and conduct with the victim
      from which Motive may be inferred; and (3) facts about the Nature of
      the killing from which it may be inferred that the manner of killing was
      so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally
      killed according to a preconceived design.

Id. (quoting United States v. Blue Thunder, 604 F.2d 550, 553 (8th Cir. 1979)).

       The jury heard evidence of Crow Ghost’s and Archambault’s turbulent
relationship. Crow Ghost described for the jury his relationship with Archambault
in October 2020 as “rocky.” There is evidence from which a reasonable juror could

                                          -11-
infer evidence of planning and motive. Despite living in his apartment for many
years without a gun, Crow Ghost purchased a handgun from Runnings in October
2020. That same month Crow Ghost showed up uninvited and unannounced at
Ybarra’s girlfriend’s residence and confronted Ybarra about having a romantic
relationship with Archambault. One or two years prior, Crow Ghost had directed
another man in Archambault’s life—Moser—to stay away from Archambault. Two
days before her murder, Archambault discussed with Crow Ghost her plans to go out
of town with Moser. The trip ultimately did not happen, which lead to Crow Ghost
and Archambault being together over the weekend when Crow Ghost killed her.

        Evidence of the manner of killing also gives rise to a reasonable inference of
premeditation. Although Crow Ghost provided three different versions of what
happened, in one accounting before the jury, Crow Ghost told law enforcement that
he aimed and fired at Archambault, who was indisputably shot in the back of the
head at a distance of at least three feet away. Armed with this evidence, the jury
could reasonably have concluded that Crow Ghost formed the requisite intent when
he purchased a handgun the same month that he confronted Ybarra for having a
romantic relationship with Archambault and subsequently, in response to an
argument regarding infidelity, Crow Ghost retrieved that gun from his bedroom
closet and shot Archambault in the head as she tried to escape. Crow Ghost’s actions
after the shooting also point towards premeditation. Rather than summon assistance,
Crow Ghost dragged an unresponsive Archambault into his apartment, changed his
clothes, locked the apartment, and left for days. While Crow Ghost argued to the
jury that he had no intention or reason to kill Archambault and instead acted in self-
defense (which the district court instructed the jury on “out of an abundance of
caution”), the jury apparently rejected his testimony. Because there is ample
evidence that supports the jury’s finding that the killing was premeditated, Crow
Ghost’s sufficiency of the evidence claim fails.

                                        -12-
        3.   Jury Instructions

       Lastly, Crow Ghost raises two claims of error in the jury instructions: (1) the
district court plainly erred when it did not instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense;
and (2) the district court abused its discretion when it failed to instruct the jury on
involuntary manslaughter. Neither of Crow Ghost’s claims have merit.

       The district court reluctantly instructed the jury on self-defense. Crow Ghost
did not raise the theory of imperfect self-defense until he filed his motion for a new
trial. “An imperfect self-defense involves the defendant’s unreasonable use of
deadly force to thwart an assault.” United States v. Milk, 447 F.3d 593, 599 (8th
Cir. 2006). The underlying premise of the claim is that some action was necessary
for the defendant to protect himself. Id. Because Crow Ghost did not request an
imperfect self-defense instruction, he must show the district court’s sua sponte
failure to give the instruction resulted (1) in an error; (2) that was clear or obvious
under current law; (3) that affected his substantial rights; and (4) that seriously
affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See
United States v. Williams, 39 F.4th 1034, 1046 (8th Cir. 2022). Crow Ghost cannot
meet his burden.

      One significant hurdle for Crow Ghost is the undisputed forensic evidence
that Archambault was shot in the back of the head from some distance away. This
evidence stands in stark contrast to Crow Ghost’s claim that the gun discharged
during a physical struggle. Further, none of Crow Ghost’s varying explanations for
how the shooting happened support self-defense. Twice Crow Ghost indicated that
the gun discharged or “went off” during a physical struggle, and once he asserted
that he aimed and shot her in the heat of passion. None of Crow Ghost’s
explanations, nor does the forensic evidence, raise a jury question on whether Crow
Ghost truly, although unreasonably, believed the use of force was necessary to avoid
imminent harm. The district court did not commit plain error when it failed to sua
sponte instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense.

                                          -13-
       Crow Ghost also challenges the district court’s refusal to give his requested
instruction on the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. The district
court instructed the jury on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and
voluntary manslaughter. A defendant is entitled to an instruction if he shows there
is evidence that would permit a jury to rationally find him guilty of the lesser offense
and acquit on the charged offense. United States v. Lasley, 832 F.3d 910, 912-13
(8th Cir. 2016). The mental state for involuntary manslaughter consists of gross or
criminal negligence. Id. at 913.

       In its post-trial decision, the district court described Crow Ghost’s theory of
defense as an accidental killing, which was consistent with the first statement Crow
Ghost gave to law enforcement. But during closing argument, Crow Ghost focused
the jury’s attention on his claim of self-defense that he developed during trial, which
was essentially the third accounting of the incident offered by Crow Ghost. Crow
Ghost testified that the gun discharged when he was trying to fend off Archambault’s
aggression. We have noted the existence of authority indicating self-defense and
involuntary manslaughter may be inconsistent and it can be “error to instruct on the
lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter in the face of a plea of self-
defense.” United States v. Iron Shield, 697 F.2d 845, 847 (8th Cir. 1983); see also
United States v. Browner, 889 F.2d 549, 555 (5th Cir. 1989) (explaining that while
there is no per se rule against an involuntary manslaughter instruction when there is
a claim of self-defense, the dispositive issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to
allow a jury to rationally find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense and
not the offense charged).

       In short, the evidence in the record is insufficient for a jury to rationally find
Crow Ghost acted in a grossly or criminally negligent manner. Crow Ghost
recounted for the jury the events immediately before the shooting as follows:
“[S]he’s grabbing my hair at full length. And soon as I’m walking out the door, I’m
trying to leave, rustle out. And then I turn around. The gun was in my right hand,
and I tried to break free from her, and the weapon went off, discharged.” Crow
Ghost claimed the gun fired due to Archambault’s aggression, not his own negligent
                                          -14-
actions. His claim, however, was contradicted by other evidence, including that the
gun was far enough away to not leave gunshot residue or stippling on Archambault’s
head, that during his second interview he told law enforcement he intentionally
aimed and shot Archambault in the heat of passion, that he had expressed jealousy
when other men talked to Archambault, and that two days before the shooting
Archambault had informed Crow Ghost of her plan to go on a trip with a male friend,
who Crow Ghost had previously directed not to talk to Archambault. The evidence
does not support Crow Ghost’s claim of involuntary manslaughter. Rather, by
instructing the jury on the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder and
voluntary manslaughter as well as Crow Ghost’s claim of self-defense, the district
court submitted all permissible issues supported by the evidence to the jury.

III.   CONCLUSION

       The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                      ______________________________

                                       -15-