United States v. Santana Drapeau, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12131

Background

On May 17–18, 2014, Santana Drapeau assaulted his then-girlfriend Dondee St. John on multiple occasions and later damaged her mother’s car with a baseball bat; he was arrested and charged in federal court under 18 U.S.C. § 117 (domestic assault by a habitual offender).
The government alleged Drapeau had at least two prior tribal-court convictions for domestic abuse in which St. John was the victim; Drapeau had pleaded no contest in those tribal proceedings and was uncounseled.
Drapeau moved in limine to exclude St. John’s testimony describing the factual details of those prior incidents and to exclude the tribal-court judgments, arguing irrelevance, unfair prejudice (Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403), and Sixth Amendment counsel errors.
The district court denied the motion, gave a limiting instruction that prior-incident testimony was admitted only to prove predicate convictions and that jurors should not treat it as propensity evidence, and St. John testified about three prior abusive incidents.
The jury acquitted Drapeau of strangulation (convicting on lesser assault) and convicted him on two counts of domestic abuse by a habitual offender; the district court sentenced him to 41 months.
On appeal Drapeau challenged (1) admission of St. John’s factual testimony about prior incidents, and (2) use of uncounseled tribal-court convictions as predicates under § 117.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of factual testimony about prior tribal convictions	St. John’s descriptions of underlying conduct were irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Rules 402/403; prosecutor should be limited to elements or records	Government: testimony was relevant to prove (a) that prior convictions existed and (b) that victim was an intimate partner; limiting instruction cured prejudice	Admission affirmed: testimony was relevant to show predicate convictions and victim status; curative instruction mitigated prejudice; no abuse of discretion
Whether court (not jury) decides if prior convictions qualify as § 117 predicates	Drapeau: court should determine qualification of prior convictions, so detailed testimony was unnecessary and prejudicial	Government: elements of crime, existence of convictions, and victim relationship are facts the prosecution may prove to the jury beyond reasonable doubt	No plain error: proving predicate elements to the jury is required; admission of testimony for that purpose was not plain error
Applicability of Old Chief limiting principle to prior-conviction evidence	Drapeau: Old Chief requires exclusion of details when a defendant offers to stipulate to prior-conviction element	Government: Drapeau did not offer a stipulation; Old Chief is narrow and concerns admission of records where stipulation offered	Rejected: Old Chief inapplicable because Drapeau never stipulated; court did not abuse discretion admitting details
Use of uncounseled tribal-court convictions as § 117 predicates	Drapeau: two tribal convictions obtained without counsel (he was indigent) cannot be used because of Sixth Amendment error	Government: tribal-court proceedings are outside Sixth Amendment right to counsel scope	Rejected: Supreme Court held tribal-court convictions may be used as § 117 predicates despite lack of Sixth Amendment counsel rights; conviction use is constitutional

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Whitetail, 956 F.2d 857 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Thomas, 791 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2015) (reversal only when improper ruling affects substantial rights)
Finan v. Good Earth Tools, Inc., 565 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir. 2009) (evidentiary-review standard cited)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (narrow rule limiting admission of detailed prior-conviction evidence when defendant offers stipulation)
United States v. Jandreau, 611 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2010) (discussion limiting Old Chief to prior-conviction evidence)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework)