United States v. Wilson Tsosie
709 F. App'x 447
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Wilson Tsosie convicted under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, for sexually assaulting his mother‑in‑law at a sheep camp.
- Prosecution relied on evidence of Tsosie’s Navajo Indian status (wife’s testimony about enrollment and ceremonies, brother’s testimony about lifelong residence on reservation, use of a Navajo interpreter) and victim testimony locating the assault at the sheep camp.
- An unauthenticated certificate of Indian blood was admitted at trial; defendant argued its admission was erroneous.
- Defendant challenged jurisdiction, arguing the offense did not occur in ‘‘Indian country.’’ The government introduced a map and testimony placing the sheep camp within the Navajo Reservation.
- Defendant raised several trial‑level errors: inadequate jury instructions on the two‑prong test for ‘‘Indian’’ status, Miranda/invocation issues after a written waiver, discovery violations relating to expert testimony, and sentencing issues (vulnerable‑victim enhancement and lifetime supervised release).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of unauthenticated certificate of Indian blood | Govt: error harmless because other strong evidence of Indian status | Tsosie: admission was erroneous and prejudicial | Harmless error — cumulative evidence established Indian status |
| Jurisdiction — whether offense occurred in Indian country | Govt: victim testimony + map show sheep camp on Navajo Reservation | Tsosie: insufficient proof locus was in Indian country | No error — jury could find locus beyond reasonable doubt and court could judicially notice map |
| Jury instructions on two‑prong ‘‘Indian’’ test | Govt: error conceded but harmless given evidence | Tsosie: failure to instruct was prejudicial | Harmless — evidentiary record of Indian status sufficient |
| Miranda and invocation of right to counsel | Govt: written waiver valid; Tsosie’s question was not an invocation | Tsosie: his question about a lawyer was an invocation, so later statements inadmissible | No error — waiver valid and question was mere inquiry, not an invocation |
| Discovery violation (expert testimony) | Govt: failed to properly notice expert testimony | Tsosie: prejudice from late disclosure | District court limited physician to lay testimony — treated as sanction; no error |
| Vulnerable‑victim enhancement | Govt: victim was particularly susceptible due to age and remote location | Tsosie: factors insufficient to support enhancement | Affirmed — factual finding reasonable that victim was especially susceptible |
| Lifetime supervised release; sentencing explanation | Tsosie: court failed to explain lifetime supervised release and improperly relied on family ties | Tsosie: sentence unreasonable | No plain error; explanation for custodial component adequate; lifetime supervised release within statutory range |
Key Cases Cited
- Deere v. Cullen, 718 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of certain rulings)
- United States v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir.) (two‑prong test for ‘‘Indian’’ status and harmless‑error analysis)
- United States v. Gipe, 672 F.2d 777 (9th Cir.) (locus within Indian country is a jury issue; boundaries may be judicially noticed)
- United States v. Coutchavlis, 260 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir.) (judicial notice of territorial maps for jurisdictional questions)
- United States v. Zepeda, 792 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. en banc) (jury instruction requirements for determining ‘‘Indian’’ status)
- Bell v. United States, 382 F.2d 985 (9th Cir.) (written Miranda advisement adequate if suspect can read and understand)
- United States v. Younger, 398 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing questions about counsel from affirmative invocation)
- Alvarez v. Gomez, 185 F.3d 995 (9th Cir.) (example of affirmative invocation of right to counsel)
AFFIRMED.