United States v. Jerry Chasing Hawk
546 F. App'x 604
8th Cir.2013Background
- Defendant Jerry Chasing Hawk was tried for sexual abuse of an incapacitated person under 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2) after a hotel incident involving the victim, Rheta Fischer.
- Fischer testified she awoke to pain and saw Chasing Hawk performing anal intercourse; her pants and underwear were removed and she immediately reported the assault.
- DNA evidence (skin cells) from Fischer’s underwear linked Chasing Hawk to the contact; he initially denied contact, then admitted sexual activity but claimed it was consensual vaginal intercourse initiated by Fischer.
- At trial Chasing Hawk was convicted and sentenced to 132 months’ imprisonment.
- Chasing Hawk argued on appeal that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the government must prove he knew the victim was incapacitated (mens rea), among other evidentiary and sentencing challenges.
- The court concluded that United States v. Bruguier (en banc) changed the interpretation of § 2242(2) to require proof that the defendant knew the victim was incapacitated, so the conviction was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with Bruguier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2242(2) requires proof that defendant knew victim was incapacitated | Gov: Mens rea limited to knowing the sexual act occurred | Chasing Hawk: Jury must find he knew victim was incapacitated | Court: Mens rea includes knowledge of victim's incapacity (per Bruguier); failure to instruct was reversible error |
| Whether district court erred by refusing defendant’s proposed instruction specifying knowledge of incapacity | Gov: Instruction unnecessary or incorrect | Chasing Hawk: Instruction required to preserve legal defense | Court: Refusal denied a legal defense; reversible error |
| Admission of prior sexual-assault evidence (offer of proof on appeal) | Gov: Evidence admissible | Chasing Hawk: Evidence prejudicial | Not reached on merits due to reversal on instructional error |
| Sentencing vulnerable-victim enhancement | Gov: Enhancement proper | Chasing Hawk: Enhancement improper | Not resolved because conviction reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Young, 613 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review when refusal of a proffered instruction denies a legal defense)