United States v. White Bull
646 F.3d 1082
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- In Fort Yates, North Dakota, White Bull lived with his girlfriend Danielle Plenty Chief and her children, including nine-year-old S.C.G.1.
- On March 10, 2009, White Bull was found on top of S.C.G.1 in the basement with her pants down and touching her genitalia.
- Plenty Chief and S.C.G.2 learned of the incident; the family did not call police at that time and White Bull remained in the home.
- Paula Condol conducted a forensic interview of S.C.G.1 on April 29, 2009, documenting allegations and Exhibit 13.
- A grand jury charged White Bull with five counts of aggravated sexual abuse; a two-day trial resulted in guilty verdicts on all five counts.
- The district court sentenced White Bull to concurrent 360-month terms; the court of appeals later addressed sufficiency, hearsay, juror, and sentencing-related issues during appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for counts 1–4 | White Bull argues the Government failed to prove attempted or actual touching not through clothing. | White Bull contends there was insufficient evidence for counts 1–4. | Counts 1–4 reversed for insufficiency. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for count 5 | There was sufficient evidence that White Bull touched S.C.G.1's genitalia with requisite intent. | The evidence failed to show touching not through clothing for count 5. | Count 5 upheld; conviction affirmed. |
| Admissibility of Exhibit 13 under Rule 807 | Exhibit 13 is admissible as a residual or catch-all exception supporting a material fact. | Exhibit 13 is hearsay and should be excluded. | Exhibit 13 admitted under Rule 807; plain error not shown. |
| Evidentiary hearing on juror misconduct | District court should have held an evidentiary hearing to investigate potential juror bias. | No plain error occurred; a hearing was not required. | Not plain error to decline an evidentiary hearing. |
| Sentencing/double jeopardy after oral pronouncement | Written supervised release conditions imposed after sentencing violated double jeopardy. | Oral pronouncement gave notice of conditions; no finality issue. | No Double Jeopardy violation; no remand for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Papakee, 573 F.3d 569 (8th Cir. 2009) (sufficiency review for ambiguous theory of conviction)
- United States v. Kenyon, 397 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir. 2005) (sufficiency standard: any reasonable jury could convict on each essential element)
- United States v. Lohnes, 554 F.3d 1166 (8th Cir. 2009) (conflicting witness testimony for sufficiency; jury credibility determinations deference)
- United States v. DeCoteau, 630 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 2011) (victim testimony alone can suffice for aggravated sexual abuse)
- United States v. Peneaux, 432 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2005) (Rule 807 residual hearsay admissibility for forensic interview evidence)
- United States v. W.B., 452 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2006) (Rule 807 and victim testimony admissibility)
- United States v. Gettel, 474 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 2007) (harmless error review for cumulative hearsay)
- United States v. Vega-Ortiz, 425 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2005) (cited regarding notice and finality in sentencing)