United States v. Robert Webster
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14172
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Defendant Robert Dion Webster, an enrolled member of the Omaha Tribe, was indicted for aggravated sexual abuse of a child under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) as extended to Indian Country by 18 U.S.C. § 1152. The indictment alleged the offense occurred on the Omaha Reservation between May 20 and July 20, 2007.
- The indictment did not allege the victim A.C.’s Indian/non‑Indian status nor state that Webster had not been punished by tribal law. Webster did not move to dismiss the indictment pretrial.
- At trial Webster stipulated he is Indian and that A.C. is non‑Indian; recordings of jail calls were played for the jury (transcripts were provided to court and defense but not jurors). The district court excluded a tribal complaint and refused to admit or disclose a letter from the victim post‑sentencing.
- Webster moved for acquittal after the evidence, arguing (1) variance from the indictment date range, (2) failure to prove A.C.’s non‑Indian status, and (3) failure to prove absence of tribal punishment. The jury convicted; Webster received the 30‑year mandatory minimum and appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, addressing sufficiency, whether § 1152’s exceptions create elements, evidentiary rulings, and the district court’s refusal to produce the victim’s letter after appeal was noticed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Variance between indictment date‑range and proof | Date range in indictment ("on or about") was adequate; government need not prove exact date | Webster argued evidence varied from indicted dates and prejudiced defense | No reversible variance: "on or about" language suffices; date not an element; no prejudice; affirmed |
| 2. Failure to allege victim’s non‑Indian status in indictment | Government not required to plead victim status where indictment otherwise not defective; defendant stipulated non‑Indian status at trial | Webster argued victim’s non‑Indian status is an element of § 1152 and indictment was fatally flawed for omitting it | Indictment sufficient post‑jeopardy review; even if status is an element, the pleading fairly informed defendant; affirmation |
| 3. Burden to prove absence of tribal punishment (§ 1152 exception) | Government argued it need not allege or initially prove absence of tribal punishment; defendant must raise tribal‑punishment defense | Webster argued government failed to prove he had not been punished by tribal law, an element of § 1152 | Court held absence of tribal punishment is not an element; defendant is best positioned to raise/produce evidence of tribal punishment; conviction stands |
| 4. Evidentiary rulings and post‑appeal letter production | Government defended exclusion/admission rulings and denial of post‑appeal production as proper | Webster argued tribal complaint exclusion and recording foundation errors; sought victim letter after appeal | No abuse of discretion on exclusion/admission; defendant failed to show prejudice; district court properly denied producing letter after appeal divested its jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Prentiss, 256 F.3d 971 (10th Cir.) (discussing Indian/non‑Indian status as potentially essential elements)
- United States v. Hester, 719 F.2d 1041 (9th Cir.) (holding government need not initially prove non‑Indian status; defendant should show tribal status)
- McKelvey v. United States, 260 U.S. 353 (1922) (holding exceptions/provisos need not be negated in indictment; party relying on exception must plead it)
- Smith v. United States, 151 U.S. 50 (1894) (construing predecessor to § 1152 regarding jurisdictional status)
- Lucas v. United States, 163 U.S. 612 (1896) (same)
- United States v. Villarreal, 707 F.3d 942 (8th Cir.) (variance/on‑or‑about instruction and harmlessness analysis)
- United States v. Kenyon, 397 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir.) (on‑or‑about language relieves government of proving specific date)