73 F. Supp. 3d 1086
D.S.D.2014Background
- Defendant Santana Drapeau is charged in a three-count indictment for assaults on his domestic partner Dondee St. John, including one count of strangulation/attempted strangulation (Count I) and two § 117 domestic-assault counts premised on alleged prior tribal-court convictions (Counts II–III).
- The Government alleges three prior Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Court convictions for "domestic abuse" that it says qualify as § 117 predicate convictions; Drapeau entered nolo contendere pleas in each.
- Drapeau moved in limine to exclude: (1) prior domestic-violence allegations/convictions, (2) his nolo contendere pleas and resulting tribal-court judgments, (3) his statements to Special Agent Tino Lopez, and (4) evidence he broke car windows; the Government opposed.
- The Government seeks admission of the tribal judgments and, if necessary, evidence about the factual circumstances underlying those convictions to prove they involved assaults on a spouse/intimate partner as required by § 117.
- The Court reviewed the interview recording with Special Agent Lopez and the redacted judgments and held a pretrial hearing; rulings are preliminary and subject to change if the evidentiary record opens the door.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of convictions based on nolo contendere pleas | Gov: convictions are essential to prove § 117 predicate element and may be admitted to show fact of conviction | Drapeau: Rule 410 and Rule 803(22)(A) bar admission of nolo contendere pleas and resulting convictions | Court: Convictions based on nolo pleas are admissible to prove the fact of conviction where conviction is an element of the charged offense (Adedoyin line of authority) |
| Admission of facts underlying tribal convictions / prior bad acts | Gov: facts/circumstances of tribal convictions are relevant to prove they qualify as § 117 assaults on a spouse/intimate partner | Drapeau: Such evidence is prior-bad-acts evidence barred by Rule 404(b) and unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Court: Judgments alone are insufficient to prove § 117 predicates when records are ambiguous; limited evidence of underlying facts is admissible to show convictions qualify, but non‑conviction prior assaults (other than May 18) are excluded unless door opened |
| Admissibility of defendant’s statements to Special Agent Lopez | Gov: statements are admissible; recording reviewed | Drapeau: He invoked Miranda and refused to discuss May 18, 2014, so statements should be excluded | Court: Drapeau was Mirandized, did not invoke rights, and spoke voluntarily; admissions against interest are admissible |
| Admission of car‑window destruction and St. John’s drug/custody matters | Gov: window‑bashing in immediate aftermath is relevant res gestae; St. John’s drug use/custody relevant only if it bears on May 18 events | Drapeau: Window evidence and unrelated drug/custody matters are prejudicial and irrelevant | Court: Window‑bashing is admissible res gestae; St. John’s drug use and custody are inadmissible except to the extent they directly relate to May 18; mention of DSS custody is barred |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Adedoyin, 369 F.3d 337 (3d Cir.) (convictions entered on nolo contendere pleas admissible to prove fact of prior conviction)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (Rule 403 balancing may favor a stipulation over prejudicial conviction evidence)
- United States v. Williams, 308 F.3d 833 (8th Cir.) (Rule 404(b) four‑part test for prior acts)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (suspect must cease interrogation after invocation of right to remain silent)
- United States v. Morrison, 748 F.3d 811 (8th Cir.) (res gestae/context evidence admissible as relevant under Rule 401)