United States v. Kison Robertson, 948 F.3d 912

On March 30, 2017, Kison Robertson engaged in an altercation with Urva Quick Bear Sr. and Jr.; he left, returned with a gun, fired two shots, and hit Quick Bear Sr. in the abdomen.
A grand jury indicted Robertson; a jury convicted him of assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
The district court sentenced Robertson to 197 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release; the PSR recommended three special supervised-release conditions at issue on appeal.
On appeal Robertson challenged: (1) admission of an anonymous 911 call and testimony about a $20 marijuana debt (evidentiary rulings under Confrontation Clause and Rule 403); (2) denial of a requested limiting jury instruction regarding firearm-possession testimony; and (3) three supervised-release conditions (blood/ bodily-fluid testing, required risk notification, and an alcohol/establishments ban).
Robertson failed to specifically object to the supervised-release conditions at sentencing, so those challenges are reviewed for plain error.

Issue	Robertson's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Admission of anonymous 911 call (Confrontation Clause & Rule 403)	Call was testimonial and/or unfairly prejudicial and cumulative	Call was an excited utterance / nontestimonial and probative; not unduly prejudicial or cumulative	Admitted: nontestimonial excited utterance; no Rule 403 abuse
Testimony that Quick Bear Sr. owed Robertson $20 for marijuana (Rule 403)	Reference to drug debt was unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded	Evidence was intrinsic (res gestae) giving context for the altercation	Admissible as res gestae; no abuse of discretion
Denial of limiting jury instruction about firearm-possession testimony	Jury should be instructed that unlawful possession does not equal guilt here; limiting instruction required	Preliminary Instructions adequately limited jury to charged offenses	Denial not an abuse of discretion; instructions as a whole were adequate
Special supervised-release conditions (blood/bodily fluids; risk-notification; alcohol/establishments ban)	Conditions improperly delegate judicial power; risk condition vague; alcohol ban unsupported by record	Court retained ultimate authority; conditions reasonably ascertainable or supported	Blood and risk conditions affirmed (no plain error); alcohol condition vacated and remanded (plain error for lack of explanation and no evidence of dependence)

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay absent prior cross-examination or unavailability)
United States v. Phelps, 168 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 1999) (911 calls may be admissible as excited utterances)
United States v. Brun, 416 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2005) (statements made under stress of startling event are nontestimonial)
United States v. Guzman, 926 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2019) (Rule 403 review is for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Dennis, 625 F.2d 782 (balance under Rule 403 generally favors admission)
United States v. Campbell, 764 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2014) (res gestae/intrinsic evidence provides context for charged crime)
United States v. Jewell, 614 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing refusal to give proffered jury instruction)
United States v. Thompson, 653 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011) (special condition is improper delegation only if court disclaims ultimate authority)
United States v. Key, 832 F.3d 837 (8th Cir. 2016) (supervised-release term not vague if its scope can be ascertained with sufficient ease)
United States v. Wisecarver, 644 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2011) (plain error review; vacating unexplained alcohol condition where record lacks basis)
United States v. Bell, 915 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 2019) (alcohol prohibition supported only where defendant is truly substance dependent)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain-error standard requires error be clear or obvious)