893 F.3d 1169
9th Cir.2018Background
- On May 11, 2014, Brian Charette shot and killed an adult grizzly near his Ronan, Montana home after bears were chasing his horses and dogs; he buried the carcass and did not report the killing.
- Months later investigators interviewed Charette; he initially denied then admitted shooting the bear and signed an affidavit stating the bear chased his dogs into the yard.
- The Government charged Charette under the Endangered Species Act and implementing regulations banning takings of grizzly bears in the lower 48; Charette maintained a self-defense claim at trial.
- At a bench trial the magistrate convicted Charette; the district court affirmed. Charette appealed contending errors on (1) inference he lacked a permit, (2) denial of a jury trial, and (3) use of an objective rather than subjective self‑defense standard.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated the conviction, and remanded for retrial because the trial court applied the wrong self‑defense standard and Charette did not testify as a result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Charette) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to infer Charette lacked an FWS taking permit | Govt relied on circumstantial evidence and Charette’s statements; argued Charette had no permit | Charette argued the Court erred to infer lack of permit without direct evidence or explicit questioning | Court: Permits are an affirmative defense under the ESA; burden to prove a valid permit lies with defendant under §1539(g); absence of defendant evidence forecloses reversal on this ground |
| Whether Charette was entitled to a jury trial | Govt: Offense is petty; no jury required under existing precedent | Charette: Penalties are severe enough to trigger Sixth Amendment jury right | Court: Followed Ninth Circuit precedent (Clavette, Wallen) — no jury trial required; affirmed |
| Proper standard for ESA §1540(b)(3) self‑defense (good faith belief) | Govt implicitly applied objective reasonableness at trial | Charette: Statute requires a subjective good‑faith belief standard; trial court applied objective test | Court: Statute requires subjective good‑faith belief; trial court erred in applying objective standard; error not harmless because Charette declined to testify under wrong standard; conviction vacated and remanded |
| Harmlessness of errors regarding permit inference and self‑defense standard | Govt: Any errors were harmless in light of trial record | Charette: Errors affected outcome and his decision not to testify | Court: Permit‑inference error harmless because defendant bears burden to prove permit; self‑defense standard error not harmless — necessitates retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clavette, 135 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 1998) (addressed elements and self‑defense in grizzly takings prosecution)
- United States v. Wallen, 874 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2017) (interpreted §1540(b)(3) and held self‑defense standard subjective; also held no jury right)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless‑error doctrine for omitted elements)
- Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (1985) (statutory interpretation on elements of federal offenses)