United States v. Begay
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 571
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Begay was convicted in the Ninth Circuit for two counts of first‑degree murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a) and two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
- The killings occurred in the early hours of March 28, 2002, on the Navajo Indian Reservation in Greasewood, Arizona, involving J.T. and O.C. as the victims.
- Begay retrieved a .30 caliber rifle from his truck and fired eight or nine shots through the passenger window, killing J.T. and wounding O.C.; a bullet from J.T. also killed O.C. indirectly.
- Key witness Jessica Lee testified she left the party with Begay and later advised Begay to blame others; her memory was later affected by alcohol, but she testified at trial.
- Loren Clark testified that Begay retrieved the rifle from under the back seat and fired from close range; he also observed Begay return to the truck and not explain his actions.
- The initial three‑judge panel reversed Begay’s first‑degree murder convictions for insufficient premeditation, prompting rehearing en banc; the en banc court ultimately upheld the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for premeditation | Begay argues there was no premeditation evidence; no motive or planning shown. | Begay contends the four key acts do not prove cooling deliberation or actual planning. | Evidence sufficient; defendant premiditated |
| Voluntary manslaughter instruction | The government argues no provocation evidence required manslaughter instruction. | Begay contends the district court should have instructed voluntary manslaughter given passion/provocation evidence. | No abuse of discretion; instruction not required |
| Evidence of witness intimidation | Evidence of consciousness of guilt and witness intimidation was admissible and probative. | Argues 403/404(b) issues; plan to intimidate witnesses improperly admitted. | Admissible; probative and not plain error |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Misstated elements but properly instructed jury; no reversible error. | Misstatement could have prejudiced; merits reversal. | No plain error; jury instruction controlled |
| Cumulative error | Argues overall prejudice from multiple errors. | No error below; no cumulative prejudice. | No cumulative error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc two‑step framework for sufficiency review (Jackson v. Virginia))
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court 1979) (sufficiency review standard; rational trier of fact)
- United States v. Free, 841 F.2d 321 (9th Cir. 1988) (circumstantial evidence and premeditation factors)
- United States v. Quintero, 21 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1994) (distinction between intent and premeditation; element of first‑degree murder)
- Belton v. United States, 382 F.2d 150 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (carrying weapon to scene as potential premeditation indicator)
- United States v. Shaw, 701 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1983) (premeditation requires more than time to deliberate; actual deliberation needed)
- United States v. Hernandez, 476 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2007) (evidence required for lesser included offenses)
- United States v. Wagner, 834 F.2d 1474 (9th Cir. 1987) (notice for 404(b) evidence requests)