United States v. Valentino Bagola
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13716
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Two Spirit Lake children, D.S. (9) and T.D. (6), were found stabbed to death; D.S. had a battery in her rectum. DNA under D.S.’s fingernails matched Valentino Bagola.
- Bagola, a cousin who had babysat the children, gave detailed oral and written confessions admitting sexual abuse of D.S. (including anal penetration) and the stabbings; investigators found corroborating physical evidence (knives, blood, broken knife handle, palm print, open basement window).
- A grand jury indicted Bagola on two counts of first-degree murder under the federal felony-murder statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a), alleging predicate offenses of aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, and child abuse.
- At trial a jury convicted Bagola on both counts; the district court sentenced him to two concurrent life terms.
- On appeal Bagola challenged: (1) felony-murder and child-abuse jury instructions (including alleged merger and statutory-definition errors); (2) sufficiency of evidence for sexual/aggravated sexual abuse predicates; and (3) exclusion of cross-examination about a polygraph examiner’s statement to another suspect (DuBois).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction: can "child abuse" be a felony-murder predicate or does it merge with the killing? | Bagola: child abuse merges with murder; predicate must be distinct from killing. | Gov't: instruction permitted; Bagola requested that instruction at trial. | Court: Rejects challenge—defendant invited the instruction by proposing it; no appellate relief. |
| Jury instruction: definition of "child abuse"—must be "serious bodily injury" per §1111(c)(3)? | Bagola: court erred by allowing "bodily injury" rather than requiring "serious bodily injury." | Gov't: instruction matched defendant’s proposed wording; overwhelming evidence of serious injury. | Court: No reversible error because Bagola requested the instruction and was not prejudiced. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for sexual and aggravated sexual abuse predicates for D.S. murder | Bagola: only self‑inculpatory statements and battery in rectum insufficient to prove sexual/aggravated sexual abuse beyond reasonable doubt. | Gov't: confession plus corroborating physical and forensic evidence (battery, lack of clothing, DNA under nails, knives, entry point, wounds, palm print) sufficed. | Court: Evidence was sufficient; convictions sustainable on child abuse or alternatively sexual/aggravated sexual abuse predicates. |
| Exclusion of cross-exam about polygraph examiner saying DuBois was “strongly reacting” (Confrontation Clause and evidentiary error) | Bagola: exclusion prevented effective cross-exam; examiner’s remark explains DuBois’s subsequent confession and could impeach credibility. | Gov't: polygraph results/interpretations are inadmissible; the government did not open the door to results; risk of undue prejudice. | Court: No abuse of discretion or plain error; exclusion proper because it would effectively introduce polygraph results and posed undue risk of prejudice; Confrontation claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mariano, 729 F.3d 874 (8th Cir.) (defendant cannot appeal an instruction he requested)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (confessions require corroboration)
- United States v. Kirk, 528 F.3d 1102 (8th Cir.) (corroboration types and sufficiency)
- Rachlin v. United States, 723 F.2d 1373 (8th Cir.) (detail in confession supports veracity)
- United States v. Montgomery, 635 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir.) (polygraph evidence disfavored)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (no consensus on polygraph reliability; limits on jury credibility role)
- United States v. Gianakos, 415 F.3d 912 (8th Cir.) (polygraph evidence and jury weight concerns)
- United States v. Durham, 868 F.2d 1010 (8th Cir.) ("opening the door" doctrine)
- United States v. Beason, 220 F.3d 964 (8th Cir.) (inadmissible evidence may be allowed to clarify/rebut if door opened)
- United States v. Johnson, 688 F.3d 494 (8th Cir.) (plain error review)
- Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985) (Confrontation Clause does not guarantee cross-examination effective in whatever way defense wishes)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (trial court has wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination)