555 F. App'x 820
10th Cir.2014Background
- Defendant Casey James Nowlin, an admitted tribal descendant (31/128 blood), was convicted under the Major Crimes Act for multiple assaults on the Wind River Indian Reservation, including one count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury and four counts of assault with a dangerous weapon.
- The assaults occurred at a bonfire on April 22, 2012; victims suffered head lacerations, contusions, and a fractured skull with permanent vision loss for one victim.
- Nowlin conceded having some Indian blood; he is not an enrolled member but his mother, maternal grandparents, and great-grandmother were enrolled Eastern Shoshone members.
- Evidence of tribal/federal recognition included prior admission of Indian status (judicially noticed), Indian Health Service care, Indian-only fishing permits, participation in powwows, and ties to the reservation.
- At trial the court judicially noticed Nowlin’s prior sworn admission of Indian status and admitted statements by Nowlin made after the assaults (including contradicting alibis and comments about jail), over objections under Rules 403 and 404(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of Indian status | Nowlin: evidence insufficient to prove he is an "Indian" under §1153 | Government: proof of some Indian blood plus tribal/federal recognition (IHS, permits, social recognition, prior admission) | Affirmed: evidence sufficient under two‑prong test (blood + recognition) |
| Judicial notice of prior admission of Indian status | Nowlin: judicially noticed statement was unfairly prejudicial or constituted improper evidence of prior bad acts | Government: admission is highly probative of tribal recognition; court sanitized wording | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion under Rules 403/404(b) |
| Admission of post-arrest statements (Noon, Lt. Shockley) | Nowlin: statements were other‑bad‑act evidence and unfairly prejudicial under Rules 404(b)/403 | Government: statements are party admissions or intrinsic to charged conduct, probative of guilt and intent | Affirmed: statements admissible as admissions/intrinsic evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| Rule 404(b) applicability | Nowlin: challenged uses were propensity evidence | Government: either not 404(b) because intrinsic/intertwined or admissible for proper purposes | Affirmed: court reasonably treated contested items as intrinsic or admissible under 404(b) framework |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 (Supreme Court) (establishes Major Crimes Act federal jurisdiction over Indians)
- United States v. Diaz, 679 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review on appeal)
- United States v. Stymiest, 581 F.3d 759 (8th Cir.) (factors for tribal/federal recognition under §1153)
- United States v. Prentiss, 273 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir.) (two‑part test for "Indian" status)
- United States v. Maggi, 598 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.) (parental identification for blood quantum prong)
- N. Arapaho Tribe v. Harnsberger, 697 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir.) (federal recognition of Eastern Shoshone referenced)
- United States v. McGlothin, 705 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir.) (standards for appellate review of evidentiary rulings under Rules 403 and 404(b))
- United States v. Archuleta, 737 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir.) (virtually all relevant evidence is prejudicial)
- United States v. Tan, 254 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir.) (Rule 404(b) is inclusive; allowable non‑propensity purposes)
- United States v. Gorman, 312 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir.) (acts intrinsic/intertwined with charged conduct are not 404(b) acts)