United States v. James Bruguier
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22422
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Bruguier was convicted by a jury of sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C. §2242(2), burglary under S.D. Codified Laws §22-32-1, aggravated sexual abuse, and sexual abuse of a minor; district court sentenced him to 360 months with five years’ supervised release.
- Bruguier appeals two convictions: §2242(2) sexual abuse (arguing jury instructions omitted a mens rea and impermissibly amended the indictment) and burglary (insufficiency of the evidence); sentencing challenge also raised.
- The §2242(2) crime arose from an incident at Crystal Strieker’s Lake Andes home on January 10, 2011, where Bruguier allegedly had sexual intercourse with an intoxicated Strieker.
- Witnesses described Bruguier on top of Strieker, Strieker unresponsive or nonresponsive, and semen observed; Miller and Thunder Horse testified to Strieker’s condition and Bruguier’s act; Strieker testified she did not consent.
- Bruguier testified Strieker consented to consensual sex and that she was conscious during the encounter.
- Bruguier stipulated he is American Indian and that the events occurred in Indian country.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2242(2) requires knowledge of the victim’s incapacity | Bruguier argues knowledge of incapacity is part of §2242(2) | Bruguier contends the district court failed to require knowledge of incapacity | Yes; knowledge of incapacity is required (reversed) |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for burglary | Strieker’s testimony shows Bruguier entered to rape | Evidence insufficient for specific intent to commit sexual assault | Evidence sufficient; burglary affirmed |
| Remedy for invalidated §2242(2) conviction affecting sentence | Sentence based on four convictions; reversal requires re-sentencing | Remand not necessary to revisit other counts | Remanded for re-sentencing; sentence vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (U.S. 2009) (presumption that knowledge applies to elements; context may rebut)
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1994) (knowingly read as applying to all elements unless rebutted)
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1994) (knowingly modifies surrounding verbs; structure matters)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1987) (interrelationship of provisions; identical language in same act presumed to have same meaning)
- Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (U.S. 1997) (textual context informs intent and knowledge requirements)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2010) (rejects reading statute to import absent intent from surrounding sections)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (U.S. 2008) (interruptive punctuation does not always control meaning; context matters)