United States v. Gilbert Crow Eagle, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2036
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Crow Eagle was convicted on two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and two counts of abusive sexual contact under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2244(a)(1), 2246(2)(A), 2246(2)(C), 2246(3), and 2241(c).
- Victims Shannon and Dusti Oliver testified to sexual touching and escalating abuse by Crow Eagle in the 1990s; Dusti described repeated touching and later intercourse with intimidation to keep silent.
- Testimony from Crow Eagle’s younger relatives Carlene, Jerilee, and Jamie Oliver about similar abuse was admitted over objection; adult victim testimony was excluded for dissimilarity.
- Crow Eagle sought to introduce alleged prior false sexual-assault allegations by others to impeach victims, but the district court excluded this evidence.
- The district court sentenced Crow Eagle to 192 months’ imprisonment.
- Crow Eagle appeals, arguing evidentiary errors and sentencing error; the court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior-sexual-assault evidence | Crow Eagle argues Rule 413/414 permitting propensity evidence should apply to victims’ relatives. | Crow Eagle contends the testimony of Carlene, Jerilee, and Jamie is sufficiently similar and probative. | District court did not abuse discretion; testimony is relevant and more probative than prejudicial. |
| Propriety of excluding prior false-allegation evidence | Crow Eagle asserts Rule 412 violated his confrontation rights by excluding prior allegations. | District court properly excluded weak, unproven false allegations to avoid mini-trials and confusion. | Exclusion not an abuse of discretion; rights not violated given weak impeachment value. |
| Confrontation rights and impeachment | Eighth Circuit rights require ability to attack credibility of alleged victims with prior allegations. | Confrontation rights do not require admitting weak prior-allegation impeachment evidence. | No Sixth Amendment violation; exclusion upheld. |
| Reasonableness of the sentence within guidelines | Crow Eagle seeks downward departure/variance due to age and health. | District court did not abuse discretion; sentence within advisory range and presumed reasonable. | Sentence affirmed; no abuse of discretion; departure not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hollow Horn, 523 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2008) (propensity evidence admissible when similar and not unfairly prejudicial)
- United States v. Gabe, 237 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2001) (balancing probative value against prejudice under Rule 403; many abuses addressed)
- United States v. Tail, 459 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2006) (impeachment value of prior false allegations must be strong to override exclusion)
- United States v. Withorn, 204 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2000) (avoid mini-trials; speculation insufficient to prove falsity)
- United States v. Carter, 410 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2005) (district court may limit number of witnesses and give cautionary instructions)
- United States v. Williams, 624 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion framework for sentencing within guidelines)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (sentence within advisory guideline range presumed reasonable)
- United States v. Pumpkin Seed, 572 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2009) (great deference to district court’s balancing of probative value and prejudice)
- United States v. White Buffalo, 84 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 1996) (Rule 412 exclusion in absence of exceptions; victim predilection evidence barred)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 581 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2009) (relevance requires similarity to charged conduct for admissibility)