United States v. Jeremy Aungie
4 F.4th 638
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- Jeremy Aungie lived with his two children and extended family on the Yankton Sioux Reservation; Aungie and the children shared a bedroom.
- A.A. (the daughter) testified that Aungie began sexually abusing her when she was about eight or nine and that abuse continued, often while he was intoxicated; he also physically assaulted her and threatened violence to keep her silent.
- A.A. left home at 13, disclosed the abuse to her mother, and described multiple incidents at trial; she denied accusing her father out of anger or to live with her mother.
- Aungie was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to concurrent 420-month terms plus supervised release.
- On appeal Aungie challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence (judgment of acquittal), (2) admission of prior-drug/alcohol/violent-acts evidence, (3) admission of expert testimony and denial of a Daubert hearing, (4) exclusion of certain text messages, and (5) exclusion of evidence of the victim’s alleged motive to lie.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / judgment of acquittal | Aungie: A.A.’s testimony was vague and uncorroborated, so convictions lack support | Government: Jury could credit A.A.; single witness’s testimony can suffice | Affirmed — viewing record in government’s favor, a reasonable juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Prior bad-acts (404(b)) evidence | Aungie: Testimony about his intoxication, drugs, and violence was improper propensity evidence | Government: Evidence showed intoxication, violence, and fear of reporting; relevant to motive and context | Affirmed — court limited and admitted evidence as relevant to fear/nonreporting; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Expert testimony & Daubert hearing | Aungie: Experts relied on undisclosed studies; he was surprised and prejudiced; court should have held a Daubert hearing | Government: Experts qualified; testimony about victim behavior is permissible; no hearing required here | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion denying a Daubert hearing or admitting qualified experts under Rule 702 |
| Exclusion of text messages (hearsay / completeness) | Aungie: Texts showing loving exchanges were present-sense impressions or required for fairness/completeness | Government: Excluded messages were hearsay, not part of same conversations, and not required to cure misleading evidence | Affirmed — texts were hearsay and not present sense impressions; exclusion harmless because substance was otherwise admitted |
| Evidence of victim’s motive to lie | Aungie: Should have been allowed to show A.A.’s misbehavior and desire to live with mother as motive to fabricate | Government: Specific details were irrelevant and unduly prejudicial | Affirmed — court excluded some specifics but A.A. testified about suspension and wanting to live with her mother; any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Golding, 972 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for judgment of acquittal/sufficiency challenge)
- United States v. Frommelt, 971 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2020) (affirming sufficiency standard and jury credibility role)
- United States v. L.B.G., 131 F.3d 1276 (8th Cir. 1997) (single witness’s uncorroborated testimony can sustain conviction)
- United States v. LaFontaine, 847 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2017) (404(b) four-part test for admissibility)
- United States v. Contreras, 816 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 2016) (application of Rule 404(b) purposes and analysis)
- United States v. Plumman, 409 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2005) (physical abuse evidence relevant to explain delayed reporting)
- In re Wholesale Grocery Prods. Antitrust Litig., 946 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2019) (appellate standard for admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (gatekeeping principles for expert admissibility)
- United States v. Mohamed, 727 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2013) (rule of completeness and district court’s discretion in remedy)
- United States v. Johnson, 860 F.3d 1133 (8th Cir. 2017) (district court not always required to hold a Daubert hearing)