United States v. Mario M. Contreras
816 F.3d 502
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mario Contreras was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and assault resulting in serious bodily injury for the death of his two-year-old daughter A.C.; he received the statutory mandatory minimum of 360 months (30 years).
- Medical evidence (autopsy and child-abuse specialists) identified 18 subgaleal hemorrhages and multiple contusions on different parts of the head inconsistent with a single fall; experts testified the injuries were consistent with blunt-force blows and a physical assault and likely occurred within days before hospitalization.
- Contreras had previously admitted to a hard spanking of A.C. in August 2011 leaving a handprint; the district court admitted testimony and a photo of that incident under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) to rebut accident.
- Contreras claimed at trial that A.C. fell from a chair; he also later (post-verdict) asserted mental illness and was evaluated; a Bureau of Prisons psychiatrist concluded he was competent and likely malingering.
- Post-trial motions (renewed judgment of acquittal, new trial for prejudicial pretrial publicity, evidentiary challenges, competency, and Eighth Amendment challenge to the mandatory minimum) were denied; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Contreras's Argument | Government's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for murder and assault | Evidence did not prove timing of injury beyond a reasonable doubt; experts said injuries might predate his custody | Medical testimony placed fatal injuries within time A.C. was solely in Contreras's care; physical findings inconsistent with a fall | Convictions upheld; evidence sufficient when viewed in government’s favor |
| Pretrial publicity / change of venue | Publicity (reporting “shaken baby”) prejudiced jury; many jurors exposed | Publicity not so pervasive as to presume prejudice; voir dire showed no actual prejudice; jury instructed to follow evidence | Denial of new trial and venue change affirmed |
| Admissibility of August 2011 spanking under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) | Admission was improper propensity evidence | Evidence admitted to show absence of mistake/lack of accident; similar victim, close in time, supported by testimony/photo; limiting instructions given | Admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Competency to be sentenced | Post-verdict changes in demeanor showed incompetence; district court should have found incompetency | BOP psychiatric exam found Contreras competent and likely malingering | District court’s finding of competency not clearly erroneous |
| Eighth Amendment challenge to mandatory minimum | 30-year mandatory minimum is disproportionate as-applied | Sentence within statutory limits and precedent disfavors Eighth Amendment relief for statutory sentences | Challenge rejected; sentence upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ramon-Rodriguez, 492 F.3d 930 (general sufficiency-of-evidence standard in defendant-favoring view)
- United States v. Gentry, 555 F.3d 659 (de novo review for sufficiency, view evidence in light most favorable to government)
- United States v. Petters, 663 F.3d 375 (two-tier pretrial-publicity analysis)
- United States v. Williams, 796 F.3d 951 (Rule 404(b) four-part admissibility test)
- United States v. Casteel, 717 F.3d 635 (competency required at all stages including sentencing)
- United States v. Rodriguez–Ramos, 663 F.3d 356 (sentences within statutory limits generally not Eighth Amendment violations)