United States v. James Lespier
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16246
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Defendant James Lespier, an enrolled member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, was tried in federal court for killing his ex‑girlfriend Mandi Smith on tribal land and convicted of first‑degree murder (18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1153) and using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- Crime scene and autopsy evidence: single .38 caliber gunshot to back of Smith’s head from intermediate distance; evidence of head trauma, bruising, blood pooling, moved/cleaned scene, revolver and pill placed near body, torn travel bag in driveway, cracked shotgun stock; gunshot trajectory inconsistent with suicide.
- Lespier gave multiple inconsistent statements to police (variously claiming Smith shot herself during a struggle, he attempted CPR, the shotgun didn’t fire, etc.) and later admitted to an inmate that he waited before calling 911 and left blood on himself.
- Prosecution introduced Rule 404(b) evidence of prior threats and physical violence by Lespier against Smith (domestic abuse incidents and explicit threats to kill), admitted after the district court’s limiting instructions.
- Defense sought to call a psychology expert to explain statement inconsistencies by sleep deprivation; the court excluded that expert as unduly invading the jury’s role in assessing credibility. The defense did call a biomechanics expert.
- At trial Lespier opposed giving the jury a lesser‑included instruction on second‑degree murder; the court ultimately declined to instruct on the lesser offense. Lespier was convicted on both counts and sentenced to consecutive life terms. On appeal he challenged sufficiency of evidence, the Rule 404(b) ruling, exclusion of his psychology expert, and the refusal to give the lesser‑included instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lespier) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree murder and §924(c) conviction | No evidence Lespier pulled trigger; no evidence of premeditation | Physical and circumstantial evidence (prior abuse, weapon from safe, trajectory, scene tampering, false statements) support inference Lespier intentionally killed Smith | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to sustain convictions |
| Admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence of prior threats/violence | Evidence was unfairly prejudicial and improper character evidence | Evidence relevant to intent and absence of accident; limiting instruction and reliability inquiry mitigate prejudice | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion admitting 404(b) evidence |
| Exclusion of defense psychology expert on sleep deprivation | Expert testimony necessary to explain inconsistent statements and present a complete defense | Expert would invade jury’s province on witness credibility; sleep‑deprivation effects are within jurors’ common understanding | Affirmed — exclusion not an abuse of discretion; expert would have intruded on credibility assessment |
| Refusal to instruct jury on lesser‑included second‑degree murder (over prosecution’s request but with defendant’s objection) | Trial court should have given the instruction despite defendant’s objection; instruction was supported by evidence | Defendant expressly opposed giving lesser instruction; invited error doctrine bars appellate relief | Instructional error occurred but was invited by Lespier’s tactical choice; not reversible — affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (constitutional right to present a defense)
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (right to present witnesses and defenses is fundamental)
- Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 (lesser‑included offense doctrine can be invoked by prosecution or defense)
- United States v. Baker, 985 F.2d 1248 (4th Cir. 1993) (district court must give lesser‑included instruction if defendant requests it)
- United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991 (4th Cir. 1997) (four‑part test for admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Rooks, 596 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2010) (Rule 404(b) is inclusive; limiting instructions mitigate prejudice)
- United States v. Dorsey, 45 F.3d 809 (4th Cir. 1995) (credibility assessments ordinarily for the jury; expert testimony on credibility is disfavored)
- United States v. Whitfield, 695 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)