916 F.3d 686
8th Cir.2019Background
- Chavez Spotted Horse (defendant) lived with niece P.M. and her brother on the Standing Rock Reservation; P.M. was a fifth grader.
- School staff reported extensive bruising; medical exams showed contusions and abrasions at various stages of healing across P.M.’s body.
- P.M. reported Spotted Horse struck her on three occasions with a plastic spoon, a plastic blind wand, and a plastic hanger after he accused her of inappropriate conduct with boys.
- Federal indictment charged three counts of child abuse (18 U.S.C. § 1153 & SDCL § 26-10-1) and three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon (18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 & 113(a)(3)).
- At trial the court (1) instructed the jury that a “dangerous weapon” is any object capable of being readily used to inflict bodily injury, (2) refused a jury instruction that would allow a statutory South Dakota "reasonable disciplinary force by a guardian" defense, and (3) excluded testimony that P.M. had been sexually touched by boys at school; Spotted Horse testified but was barred from detailing alleged sexual touching.
- Jury convicted on all six counts; Spotted Horse was sentenced to concurrent 76-month terms (with supervised release) and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court’s "dangerous weapon" jury instruction was too broad | Instruction matched statutory intent and precedent; harmless if any error | Spotted Horse: instruction was overbroad; requested a narrower "likely to endanger life or inflict serious bodily harm" definition | Court upheld the broader instruction ("capable of being readily used to inflict bodily injury"); no abuse of discretion; any error harmless given injuries |
| Whether defendant should have received instruction on SD statutory defense for reasonable disciplinary force by a guardian | Government: defendant not a legal guardian; evidence doesn’t support reasonable/moderate force | Spotted Horse: qualified as a guardian (ordinary meaning) and entitled to the defense instruction | Court refused the instruction; alternatively held no reasonable jury could find force was reasonable/moderate in degree |
| Whether exclusion of evidence that P.M. was sexually touched violated confrontation/due process rights | Exclusion appropriate to protect victim and because testimony was cumulative/immaterial | Spotted Horse: exclusion prevented him from explaining motive and defense; mistrial warranted | Court affirmed exclusion and denial of mistrial; ruled limitation not arbitrary and defendant could present motive through other testimony |
| Whether revising an in limine ruling mid-trial was improper | In limine rulings are preliminary; judge may revise based on trial context | Spotted Horse: change mid-trial prejudiced defense and warranted mistrial | Court held trial court may alter in limine rulings as circumstances require; no constitutional error or abuse of discretion in denying mistrial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hollow, 747 F.2d 481 (8th Cir.) (earlier discussion of "dangerous weapon" in context of a knife)
- United States v. Farlee, 757 F.3d 810 (8th Cir.) (sufficiency-context language on objects capable of inflicting bodily injury)
- United States v. Farah, 899 F.3d 608 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for jury instructions)
- United States v. Pumpkin Seed, 572 F.3d 552 (8th Cir.) (limits on defense evidence and reasons to exclude testimony)
- United States v. Never Misses A Shot, 781 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir.) (defendant’s right to present evidence is subject to trial-court limitations)