United States v. Dashown Keys
918 F.3d 982
8th Cir.2019Background
- Dashown Keys lived with his uncle’s family on the Sisseton‑Wahpeton Sioux reservation from 2013–2015 and shared a bedroom with minor I.C.; other children (J.V., H.L., R.C.) had sleepovers there.
- In January 2016 I.C., then 12, disclosed that Keys had sexually abused her beginning around age 9; investigations produced similar allegations from J.V. and H.L.
- Superseding indictment charged Keys with four counts of aggravated sexual abuse and two counts of abusive sexual contact of children in Indian country.
- At a three‑day jury trial I.C., J.V., and H.L. testified about repeated sexual contact; Keys was convicted on all six counts.
- On appeal Keys challenged three evidentiary rulings (admission of H.L.’s testimony under Rules 413/403; the district judge’s comment to child witness J.V.; limitation on defense witness Deon Taylor) and the reasonableness of a 540‑month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of H.L.’s testimony (Rule 413/403) | H.L.’s testimony was relevant and admissible as similar‑act sexual‑assault evidence | Admission was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Admit upheld: testimony was similar, probative, and not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 413/403 discretion |
| District judge’s comment to J.V. (mistrial) | Court’s remark (“try to answer… so you can get off the stand”) was neutral effort to assist a distraught child | Remark abandoned neutrality and improperly favored the prosecution, warranting mistrial | Denial of mistrial affirmed: isolated, not eliciting answers, context showed effort to reduce witness trauma, jury instructions preserved neutrality |
| Limiting Deon Taylor’s testimony (right to present a defense) | Taylor’s testimony about motive/gifts and alleged financial dispute was relevant to show motive to fabricate and benign motive for gifts | Court properly excluded speculative opinion about others’ intent and marginally relevant evidence; defense could have offered corroboration or recalled witness after Keys testified | Affirmed: exclusion was within discretion, not a deprivation of substantial rights and had only slight influence on verdict |
| Sentence reasonableness / disparities (540 months) | Sentence substantively and procedurally unreasonable; court failed adequately to address sentencing disparities | District court considered §3553(a), addressed disparity arguments, and made defendant‑specific findings supporting sentence | Affirmed: no procedural error preserved; substantive sentence reasonable and based on defendant‑specific determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gabe, 237 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2001) (Rule 413/414 admissibility of prior sexual‑assault evidence)
- United States v. Crow Eagle, 705 F.3d 325 (8th Cir. 2013) (similarity of methods relevant to prior‑act admissibility)
- United States v. Never Misses A Shot, 781 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2015) (standards for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Horn, 523 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 413 prejudice vs. probative value)
- United States v. Bland, 697 F.2d 262 (8th Cir. 1983) (reluctance to reverse for isolated judge comments)
- United States v. Butler, 56 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 1995) (handling sensitive child testimony)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (state interest in protecting child sex‑crime victims)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) (protection of minor victims from further trauma)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (appellate review of §3553(a) explanations)
- United States v. McElderry, 875 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2017) (limits on comparing unrelated sentences to show disparity)