United States v. June Wolverine
584 F. App'x 646
9th Cir.2014Background
- Defendant June Lee Wolverine was convicted by a jury of assault resulting in serious bodily injury and assault with a dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 113, charged as crimes committed in Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1153.
- The prosecution introduced evidence of a prior stabbing (nine months earlier) in which Wolverine stabbed the same victim, Nate Tatsey; Wolverine claimed the stabbing at trial was in self-defense and accidental.
- Wolverine’s trial testimony conflicted with prior statements she and Tatsey made to law enforcement; an audio recording captured Wolverine making inculpatory statements to an FBI agent.
- The district court admitted the prior stabbing under Rule 404(b), excluded certain testimony from Wolverine’s daughter, denied motions for acquittal, applied a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement at sentencing, and imposed 78 months’ imprisonment plus three years’ supervised release.
- Wolverine appealed, arguing (1) improper admission of 404(b) character evidence, (2) violation of her right to present a complete defense via exclusion of witness testimony, (3) insufficient evidence to reject her self-defense claim, (4) erroneous application of the obstruction enhancement, and (5) inadequate sentencing explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior stabbing under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) | Prior stabbing was too dissimilar and more prejudicial than probative | Prior stabbing was relevant to intent and substantially similar | Admission affirmed: prior act met materiality, similarity, authenticity, and timeliness; limiting instruction reduced prejudice |
| Exclusion of daughter's testimony (right to present defense) | Excluding testimony about third-party retaliatory harassment prevented a complete defense | Excluded testimony was cumulative and tangential | Harmless error (if any): exclusion was cumulative given other evidence of victim's violence and drinking |
| Sufficiency of evidence for rejecting self-defense (motion for acquittal) | Wolverine contends evidence supports self-defense | Government relied on prior statements, neighbor reports, and recorded admission contradicting self-defense | Evidence sufficient: reasonable jury could disbelieve Wolverine and convict |
| Obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. §3C1.1 | Enhancement improper absent explicit finding whether perjury or a materially obstructive false statement to FBI occurred | Judge need not specify which example in commentary; record shows willful, material misstatements supporting enhancement | Affirmed: district court made sufficient findings that defendant willfully made material misstatements obstructive of justice |
| Sufficiency of sentencing explanation | Sentence was procedurally and substantively unjustified | District court considered §3553(a) factors and stated reasons (dangerousness, seriousness) | Affirmed: within-guidelines sentence; court adequately considered factors and explained basis |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mayans, 17 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 1994) (standard of review for admission of character evidence)
- United States v. Hernandez-Miranda, 601 F.2d 1104 (9th Cir. 1979) (government’s burden to show 404(b) relevance)
- United States v. Arambula-Ruiz, 987 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1993) (four-part test for admitting other-act evidence)
- United States v. Bowman, 720 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1983) (prior acts probative of intent when self-defense claimed)
- United States v. Sinn, 622 F.2d 415 (9th Cir. 1980) (admission of nearly identical prior bad act)
- United States v. Montgomery, 150 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1998) (limiting instruction mitigates prejudice)
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (Jackson sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- United States v. Draper, 996 F.2d 982 (9th Cir. 1993) (obstruction enhancement covers conduct with potential to obstruct)
- United States v. Lambert, 498 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2007) (authority of Guidelines commentary and limits)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (Guidelines commentary generally authoritative)
- United States v. Jimenez-Ortega, 472 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007) (factual predicates required for obstruction enhancement; remand when district court fails to make findings)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (sentencing explanation standards)