961 F.3d 1031
8th Cir.2020Background
- Quentin Peter Bruguier, Jr. was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of sexual and aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact involving four victims.
- Bruguier lived with his then-girlfriend Cindy St. Pierre and foster children (two of whom were alleged victims); St. Pierre gave a recorded statement to the FBI before she died.
- Bruguier sought to admit St. Pierre’s recorded FBI statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 807 (the catch‑all hearsay exception). The district court excluded the statement.
- At sentencing the district court applied U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 obstruction‑of‑justice enhancements for perjury as to each of the four victims, increasing Bruguier’s Guidelines range.
- Bruguier appealed both the exclusion of the statement and the perjury‑based enhancements; the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court on both issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under FRE 807 of Cindy St. Pierre’s recorded FBI statement | St. Pierre’s recorded FBI statement is trustworthy and admissible under Rule 807 because it was preserved on audio and addresses material facts | Statement lacks sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness (timing, bias, not under oath); recording does not prove truthfulness | Excluded: statement fails Rule 807’s trustworthiness requirement; no abuse of discretion |
| Application of U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for perjury | Enhancement improper procedurally and factually; court erred in finding perjury | District court made independent findings and proved perjury elements by preponderance | Affirmed: court properly evaluated testimony, found instances of willful falsehood, applied enhancements |
| Constitutional claim that enhancement chills right to testify | Enhancement violates defendant’s right to testify | Right to testify does not include right to commit perjury (Dunnigan) | Rejected: valid perjury finding removes constitutional concern |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Enhancements rendered sentence substantively unreasonable; court treated Guidelines as mandatory | Sentence within advisory Guidelines is presumptively reasonable; court considered Guidelines as advisory | Rejected: sentence not substantively unreasonable; court considered advisory range |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stoney End of Horn, 829 F.3d 681 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard for Rule 807 trustworthiness review)
- United States v. Love, 592 F.2d 1022 (8th Cir. 1979) (courts should use catch‑all hearsay exception rarely)
- United States v. Halk, 634 F.3d 482 (8th Cir. 2011) (timing and surrounding circumstances affect hearsay reliability)
- United States v. Cunningham, 593 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2010) (deference to district court on obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Gomez‑Diaz, 911 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2018) (need for independent evaluation and perjury findings for §3C1.1)
- United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2011) (elements of perjury and limits on enhancements based solely on jury disbelief)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (defendant’s right to testify does not include right to commit perjury)
- United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2009) (presumption of reasonableness for Guidelines‑range sentences)