United States v. Fasthorse
639 F.3d 1182
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Late evening of Nov 9–10, 2008, Fasthorse engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim.
- Victim testified she was drinking and using marijuana; she woke to find Fasthorse on top of her.
- Fasthorse claimed the victim was awake and consented; credibility of both sides contested.
- Jury deliberated about three hours and convicted Fasthorse of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2)(B).
- District court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 130 months.
- This appeal challenges sufficiency of the evidence and the sentencing procedure and reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for physical incapacity | Government contends evidence shows victim woke during act, enough to show incapacity. | Fasthorse argues there was insufficient evidence she was physically unable to decline. | Sufficient evidence supported conviction; jury could deem she was asleep when act began. |
| Procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence | Government asserts sentence within Guidelines and reasonable under 3553(a). | Fasthorse claims error and argues for a lower sentence. | No procedural error; sentence within Guidelines and substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wilcox, 487 F.3d 1163 (8th Cir. 2007) (sleeping victim may show incapacity to decline)
- United States v. Barrett, 937 F.2d 1346 (8th Cir. 1991) (barrier to declining participation when asleep)
- United States v. Smith, 606 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2010) (evidence of asleep victim supports sufficient evidence)
- United States v. Peters, 277 F.3d 963 (7th Cir. 2002) (insufficient where record silent on timing)
- United States v. Williams, 89 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 1996) (insufficient where victim awake and resisting)
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency on appeal; credibility judgments)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentences; 3553 factors)
- United States v. Bennett, 621 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2010) (procedural and substantive review under sentencing framework)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc standard for sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (illogical or implausible application of Guidelines review)