United States v. Shillingstad
632 F.3d 1031
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Shillingstad lived with his girlfriend in Wakpala, within the Standing Rock Reservation, where the incident occurred on December 14, 2008.
- Shillingstad allegedly hit White Bull with a plate, brandished a two-by-four, and struck her on the forearm and leg during a nighttime argument.
- Rangers responded; White Bull initially claimed she fell, but later recanted to say Shillingstad struck her with the board; medics treated head and knee injuries.
- Medical evidence showed a subdural hematoma and tibial fracture; doctors opined the injuries could not result from a fall alone.
- A jury convicted Shillingstad of assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury; he challenged evidentiary rulings and his sentence.
- The district court upwardly departed from the advisory guidelines, placing him at 70–87 months, and he was sentenced to 80 months concurrent with three years of supervised release.
- On appeal, Shillingstad challenged Rule 404(b) evidence of prior tribal convictions, cross-examination of a defense witness about those convictions, exclusion of a paramedic’s testimony, and the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prior tribal convictions under Rule 404(b) | Convictions improper as character proof, not proper 404(b) purpose. | Convictions relevant to intent and absence of accident; sufficiently probative; properly limited. | Admission not abuse of discretion; convictions probative and properly limited. |
| Opening the door to questions about prior offenses | Door opened by Eagleman's unsolicited cross-examination responses; proper impeachment. | Door opened by the defense witness, allowing 404(b) evidence to impeach. | Harmless error; did not substantially influence the verdict. |
| Impeachment via prior inconsistent statement of White Bull (Rule 613(b)) | Paramedic testimony should be admitted to impeach memory. | White Bull’s memory was genuinely unclear; inconsistent statement not established. | Exclusion upheld; error, if any, was harmless due to cumulative corroboration. |
| Upward departure in sentencing under USSG 4A1.3 | Criminal history underrepresents risk; departure warranted. | Explain departure adequately; not an abuse of discretion. | Two-category departure preserved; district court sufficiently explained reasoning; no procedural error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Thomas, 593 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2010) (tests for admissibility of 404(b) evidence: relevance, similarity, timing, probative value vs. prejudice)
- United States v. Littlewind, 595 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2010) (closer temporal proximity and similarity bolster 404(b) probative value)
- United States v. Walker, 428 F.3d 1165 (8th Cir. 2005) (unfair prejudice balancing in 404(b) analysis)
- United States v. Henderson, 613 F.3d 1177 (8th Cir. 2010) (harmless error standard for evidentiary errors)
- United States v. Bordeaux, 570 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2009) (cumulative evidence considerations in evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Azure, 536 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (departure explanation and comparable reasoning in sentencing)
- United States v. Mentzos, 462 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2006) (criteria for considering circumstances in sentencing departures)
- United States v. Cook, 615 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2010) (bounds for reviewing upward departures from guideline ranges)
- United States v. Durham, 868 F.2d 1010 (8th Cir. 1989) (opening the door principle in cross-examination)
- United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490 (8th Cir. 1976) (discretion in determining inconsistent statements in Rule 613(b))