United States v. James Bruguier
703 F.3d 393
8th Cir.2012Background
- Bruguier was convicted after trial of sexual abuse of an incapacitated person, sexual abuse of a minor, aggravated sexual abuse, and burglary; sentenced at bottom of range to 360 months with five years' supervised release.
- Convictions arose from four victims in Indian country, across separate incidents: Crystal Strieker, Vicki Johnson, T.S., and K.S.
- District court applied PSR with range 360 months to life; Bruguier challenged sentencing enhancements and acceptance of responsibility issues.
- Appeal argued improper jury instructions, constructive amendment of the indictment, and error in guideline calculations; sufficiency of evidence for burglary was also challenged.
- Panel affirmed convictions and sentence, addressing jury instructions, indictment alignment, and guideline applications (4B1.5, acceptance of responsibility, vulnerable victim).
- Dissent argues the jury instruction should have required knowledge of incapacity and would remand or resentence if wrong.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction on § 2242(2) properly required knowledge of incapacity | Bruguier asserts error by not requiring knowledge Crystal was incapacitated | Majority: instruction correctly conveyed law; no need for extra element | Instruction fair and adequately submitted the issue |
| Whether the jury instruction constructively amended the indictment | Bruguier contends wording changed theory by using ‘cause’ instead of ‘engage in’ | No substantial risk; language tracked indictment and § 2242(2) | No constructive amendment; language read to jury matched indictment |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the burglary conviction | Bruguier contends no proof of entry/remained with intent to assault | Evidence showed uninvited entry, timing, and intent to commit sexual assault | Sufficient evidence; burglary conviction sustained |
| Whether the five-level 4B1.5 pattern enhancement was properly applied | Ambiguity about applying enhancement to counts individually | Guidelines require a combined offense level before Chapter 4 adjustments | Enhancement applied to combined offense level; properly calculated |
| Whether acceptance of responsibility and vulnerable victim adjustments were correctly applied | Should have reduced for acceptance; vulnerable victim adjustment misapplied or harmless | No acceptance credit; vulnerable victim properly applied; any error harmless | Acceptance not credited; vulnerable victim adjustment upheld; calculations procedurally sound |
Key Cases Cited
- X-Citement Video, Inc. v. United States, 513 U.S. 64 (Supreme Court 1994) (scienter may not extend to all elements in some contexts)
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (Supreme Court 2009) (contextual interpretation of know-meanings of ‘knowingly’)
- Peters, 277 F.3d 963 (7th Cir. 2002) (instruction requiring knowledge of incapacitation upheld in different circuit)
- Betone, 636 F.3d 384 (8th Cir. 2011) (vulnerable victim and § 2242(2) discussed; evidence context)
- Gavin, 583 F.3d 542 (8th Cir. 2009) (indictment language and reliance on exact phrasing)
- Lodg-ley, 257 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard for reviewing jury instructions on abuse of discretion)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (standard for reviewing sentences; procedural vs. substantive)
- De Oliveira, 623 F.3d 593 (8th Cir. 2010) (sentencing context for vulnerable victim considerations)
- Lara-Ruiz, 681 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2012) (plain error review for constructive amendments)