United States v. Diaz
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9337
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Diaz, Pojoaque Pueblo member, hit a pedestrian on Highway 285 within Pojoaque Pueblo boundaries and left the scene.
- Espinoza’s body was found the same day; Diaz admitted possible involvement and alcohol was involved that night.
- Diaz was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1152 for leaving the scene of an accident resulting in great bodily harm or death; the incident occurred in Indian Country.
- The government must prove the victim was non-Indian for federal jurisdiction; Diaz is an Indian and a member of Pojoaque Pueblo.
- The district court admitted and excluded certain evidence; Diaz challenged jurisdiction, jury instructions, Rule 404(b) rulings, comments on evidence, and Brady-impeachment disclosure.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed Diaz’s conviction, holding the government proved victim-non-Indian status and that the other rulings were within the court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the victim’s non-Indian status was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. | Diaz argues the government failed to prove non-Indian status. | Government contends father’s testimony showed lack of Indian status. | Yes; sufficient evidence supported non-Indian status. |
| Whether the jury instructions correctly stated knowledge under the statute. | Diaz claims improper instruction on “accident” and lesser offense. | Government asserts proper knowledge requirement and that lesser offense was validly included. | Yes; instructions were proper. |
| Whether admitting Diaz’s pre-incident drinking and excluding victim’s drinking was error under Rule 404(b). | Diaz contends improper exclusion and prejudicial impact. | Government argues admissible to show motive/knowledge; victim’s drinking not necessary. | No reversible error; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether the court’s comments on the evidence prejudiced Diaz. | Diaz argues comments biased the jury. | Judge’s remarks were permissible and not prejudicial. | No reversible prejudice; comments harmless. |
| Whether undisclosed impeachment evidence violated Brady/Giglio. | Diaz claims the witness impeachment evidence was suppressed and material. | Evidence was of limited value and not material given substantial other proof. | No Brady/Giglio violation; not material. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Prentiss, 273 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir.2001) (two-part test for Indian status: some Indian blood and recognition by tribe or government)
- United States v. Torres, 733 F.2d 449 (7th Cir.1984) (tribal enrollment alone can suffice under certain circumstances to prove Indian status)
- United States v. Keys, 103 F.3d 758 (9th Cir.1996) (confirms dual-prong test for Indian status; both parts must be satisfied)