United States v. DeCoteau
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 578
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- DeCoteau, a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, lived on a reservation and has mild mental retardation with an IQ around 55–57.
- He sometimes babysat S.S. and R.S.L. at the Schroeders’ trailer between December 2006 and fall 2007.
- In spring 2008 S.S. and R.S.L. reported sexual abuse by DeCoteau; Karen Schroeder notified authorities, leading to FBI involvement.
- Two experts conducted competency evaluations; both noted cognitive limitations, but disagreed on his ability to assist in his defense.
- The district court found DeCoteau competent to stand trial after weighing the experts’ testimony and relied on one expert’s assessment.
- At trial, S.S. testified about touching and identified DeCoteau; R.S.L. corroborated by testimony, and DeCoteau admitted some touching in a taped statement; he was convicted on four counts, with one aggravated-sexual-abuse count dismissed for insufficiency of evidence and overall sentencing of 360 months concurrent with 51-month terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to stand trial | Government contends district court properly weighed expert evidence and did not clearly err. | DeCoteau asserts no factual findings and argues memory and functioning undermine competence. | District court did not err; DeCoteau competent to stand trial. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated sexual abuse | Government argues S.S.’s testimony plus DeCoteau’s taped admission proves digital penetration. | DeCoteau contends testimony about ‘inside’ is not sufficiently specific. | Evidence sufficient to prove digital penetration beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Sentence below statutory minimum | Government argues mandatory minimum applies; court must impose at least 30 years. | DeCoteau asserts § 3553(a) allows below-minimum sentencing absent exceptions. | Court lacks authority to sentence below the mandatory minimum; affirmed minimum. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (recognizes standard for competence to stand trial)
- United States v. Ghane, 593 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court may choose among competing expert opinions)
- United States v. Ameri, 412 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2005) (trial court’s deference to expert testimony on competence)
- United States v. Kirkie, 261 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2001) (victim testimony can suffice to prove aggravated sexual abuse)
- United States v. Espinosa, 585 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. 2009) (sufficient evidence for aggravated sexual abuse when evidence and testimony corroborate)
- United States v. Lohnes, 554 F.3d 1166 (8th Cir. 2009) (definition of sexual act under 18 U.S.C. § 2246(2)(C))
- United States v. Rojas, 520 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Billue, 576 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2009) (parsimony clause generally cannot lower below mandatory minimum)