849 F.3d 912
10th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Steven John was convicted by a jury of attempted aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact in Indian country for an incident on July 18, 2013, involving the victim in her home shower.
- Victim testified that Defendant entered, undressed, struggled with her while both were naked, pulled her head toward his genitals, and restrained her; she escaped, called police, and physical signs (displaced trashcan, blood) were observed; no forensic testing was done.
- Defense sought to cross-examine the victim about an inpatient behavioral-health episode in Phoenix four months earlier, arguing it bore on her ability to perceive, remember, and narrate events (and more broadly on credibility). The district court disallowed that line of questioning.
- Defendant also challenged three jury instructions (on corroboration, witness interviews with prosecutors, and inference of intent) and requested a lesser-included instruction for simple assault; the court refused the lesser instruction.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the confrontation/complete-defense challenge, upholding the contested instructions, and finding no abuse in refusing the simple-assault instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restriction on cross-examination about prior Phoenix inpatient episode | Government: exclusion was proper; cross-exam limited for relevance and trial management | John: exclusion violated Confrontation Clause and due process/right to present a complete defense because incident showed impaired perception/memory and propensity to lie | Affirmed: exclusion did not violate Confrontation Clause or right to present defense—Phoenix episode not marginally relevant to ability to perceive/remember/narrate the charged event and defense counsel waived a 608(b) impeachment theory |
| Jury Instruction 9 (no corroboration required) | Government: instruction properly informs jurors that conviction may rest on one witness if belief beyond reasonable doubt | John: instruction misstates burden, undermines defense theory that lack of corroboration was central | Affirmed: instruction not misleading when read with Instruction 8 and reasonable-doubt charge; did not compel belief in victim |
| Jury Instruction 10 (attorney interviews with witnesses) | Government: informs jurors that witness-prep does not inherently reflect adversely on truthfulness | John: insulated prosecutorial coaching and helped jury excuse testimony change after recess | Affirmed: instruction correct and did not prevent defense argument about possible coaching; not an abuse of discretion |
| Jury Instruction 16 (inference of intent from natural/probable consequences) | Government: common-sense instruction about drawing inferences | John: ambiguous and confusing for specific-intent crimes; could lower required mens rea | Affirmed: despite circuit discomfort with instruction, overall charge made government burden to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt clear; no reversible error |
| Lesser-included offense instruction (simple assault) | John: requested because intent to commit sexual act was disputed and evidence might permit conviction of assault without sexual intent | Government: record did not support a rational basis to find assault occurred without sexual intent | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence did not allow reasonable inference of nonsexual intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (right to effective cross-examination under Confrontation Clause)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (Confrontation Clause allows reasonable limits on cross-examination)
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (right to present a defense is fundamental)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (right to a fair opportunity to present a defense)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (waiver/forfeiture and intentional relinquishment of rights)
- United States v. Joe, 831 F.2d 218 (lesser-included instruction standards in sexual-assault context)
- United States v. Heath, 580 F.2d 1011 (circuit caution about jury instruction on inferences of intent)
- United States v. Woodring, 464 F.2d 1248 (discussion of Instruction 16-type language)
- United States v. Williamson, 746 F.3d 987 (standard of review for jury instructions)
- United States v. Faust, 795 F.3d 1243 (review of jury instructions as a whole)