United States v. Anthony Fast Horse
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6335
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Fast Horse was convicted of one count of sexual abuse in Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2) and related statutes, involving Quintina Little Elk.
- Crow Dog, Fast Horse’s co-defendant and Little Elk’s half-sister, pled guilty to Counts and later recanted allegations leading to trial on the remaining counts.
- Little Elk testified that she slept in the bed with Crow Dog and Fast Horse, awoke to find Fast Horse having intercourse with her, and he stopped after she resisted.
- Fast Horse challenged the mens rea instruction, arguing it failed to require knowledge of the victim’s incapacity, thus denying a legal defense.
- The district court provided a five-element jury instruction for Count IV, including a separate element that Fast Horse acted knowingly, but it did not expressly require knowledge of Little Elk’s incapacity as part of the act.
- The district court denied Fast Horse’s proposed instruction that would have required knowledge of incapacity; the jury was left to decide only that he knowingly acted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the jury instruction on mens rea plain error for § 2242(2)? | Fast Horse | Fast Horse | Yes; plain error because instruction failed to require knowledge of incapacity |
| Did the erroneous instruction affect a substantial right and trial fairness? | Government | Fast Horse | Yes; reasonable probability of different verdict |
| Should the conviction be reversed given the instructional error under Olano? | Prosecution | Fast Horse | Conviction reversed; remanded for new trial |
| Did the district court’s error compromise Sixth Amendment jury rights? | Prosecution | Fast Horse | Yes; jeopardized the integrity of proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bruguier, 735 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2013) (en banc holding on mens rea for § 2242(2))
- United States v. Rush-Richardson, 574 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain error review framework)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court, 1993) (plain error framework)
- United States v. Wisecarver, 598 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2010) (definition of plain error; prejudice)
- United States v. Rice, 449 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2006) (review of jury instructions; evidence of knowledge)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court, 2009) (respecting plain-error review standards)
- United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc; applying Olano factors)
- United States v. Rouillard, 740 F.3d 1170 (8th Cir. 2014) (relief after Bruguier when final instructions similar)
- United States v. Ganim, 510 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2007) (plain error when instruction ambiguous but not clear error)