UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenderick BEGAY, a.k.a. Kendrick Begay, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10487.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 14, 2009. Filed June 1, 2009.
Here, it cannot be said that a reasonable person in Governor Kulongoski‘s position would have known that he was violating Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment due process rights under the circumstances of this case. Even if we assume, arguendo that the statements in the Releases were stigmatizing to Plaintiffs, it was not then established whether the stigmatizing statements satisfied the “temporal nexus” requirement of Campanelli, nor that the Governor could be found to have “caused” Plaintiffs’ terminations. Accordingly, we reverse the district court‘s denial of summary judgment to Governor Kulongoski.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Governor Kulongoski.
Ann Birmingham Scheel, Assistant United States Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for the plaintiff-appellee.
Before: MYRON H. BRIGHT,* PROCTER HUG, JR., and STEPHEN REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Concurrence by Judge BRIGHT.
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
Defendant-appellant Kenderick Begay appeals his convictions of two first-degree murders in violation of
I. BACKGROUND
In the early morning hours of March 28, 2002, Kenderick Begay1 drove his truck through the Navajo Indian Reservation in Greasewood, Arizona after leaving a gathering at the “windmill,” an area in town where the youth partied. His passengers included his sister Mecheryl Begay, Loren Clark, Emmanley Begay, and Jessica Lee. When a car passed them traveling in the opposite direction sometime around 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m., Begay turned his truck around. The other car turned around as well. When the two vehicles passed each other again, Begay flashed the lights of his truck, presumably signaling the other car to stop. The two vehicles pulled off the highway and onto a dirt road. Begay got out of his truck and walked to the driver‘s side of the other car. Two high school students, J.T. and O.C.,2 were in the car; O.C. was in the driver‘s seat and J.T. was in the front passenger‘s seat.
After about a minute of standing by the driver‘s side of the car, probably exchanging words with the car‘s occupants, Begay walked back to his truck. He reached under the driver‘s seat, pulled out a .30 caliber rifle, and walked back to the pas
After firing the shots, Begay walked back to his truck and put the gun under the back seat. Clark, who had gotten out of the truck prior to the shooting to relieve himself, “just stood there” before asking, “What the hell are you doing?” Begay did not answer. His sister Mecheryl ran up to him making “horrible cries” and yelling at him, screaming, “What did you do?” or “Why did you do that?” Begay told her to be quiet. Clark walked over to the car and saw J.T. gasping for air and O.C. sitting in her seat. Clark again asked Begay why he shot the victims, but Begay did not respond.
Begay, Mecheryl, and Clark got back into the truck and drove away. Lee remained behind. Up until the shooting, she was in a comatose state in the rear of the truck as a result of having consumed too much alcohol. The gunshots roused her from her stupor, at which point she felt an immediate need to vomit and exited the truck to do so. Lee did not reenter the vehicle following the shooting, but instead walked home from the crime scene. As she passed O.C.‘s car, she saw O.C. trying to hold J.T. upright and saw that J.T.‘s shirt was bloody.
O.C. managed to drive her car to a nearby housing area, where she sought help from Rosita Clark, Loren Clark‘s mother. By the time O.C. and J.T. arrived, J.T. was already dead. O.C. was transported to a nearby hospital before being transferred to a hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where she died from her wounds three days later.
FBI agents and Navajo investigators began to investigate the crime immediately. They interviewed numerous people, including Begay, who denied being out the night of the murders and stated that he had been with his girlfriend the entire time. Investigators learned from other sources, however, that Begay might have been at the party the victims attended. Approximately two weeks after the murders, investigators located the crime scene, where they found glass on the ground and six .30 caliber shell casings. After this discovery, the agents continued to investigate for several months, but failed to make any further progress.
The investigation‘s first break came six months after the shooting, in the autumn of 2002, when Jessica Lee contacted the FBI about the murders. She eventually told the FBI, and later testified at trial, that she had been present at the party and left with Begay, Mecheryl, Clark, and Emmanley. Lee admitted that alcohol impaired her memory, but stated that she remembered leaving the party with that group, that, after having passed out, she woke up at the sound of gunshots and that she saw the victims after they had been shot. She also testified that a few days after the murders, she asked Begay what she should tell the police and that he told her to blame the murders on two other men. Lee and Begay never spoke about the murders again.
The next major development in the investigation came four years after the shooting, in May 2006, when the FBI contacted Clark. Other than Lee, Clark was the only percipient witness who testified at trial. Moreover, as Lee witnessed only the shooting‘s aftermath, Clark was the sole witness to testify as to the events leading up to the shooting or the details of the shooting itself. Clark testified that when the two cars pulled over, he exited Begay‘s vehicle in order to urinate. Be
A jury convicted Begay of two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence. The district court imposed mandatory concurrent life sentences for each murder conviction as well as consecutive 120-month and 300-month sentences, or a total of thirty-five years, for the firearm convictions.
II. PREMEDITATION
Begay‘s principal argument on appeal from the first-degree murder convictions is that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence that the murders constituted “premeditated killing[s].”
The government agrees with Begay that the central issue in this case is whether it produced sufficient evidence that the murders of O.C. and J.T. were premeditated. Premeditation is the essential element that distinguishes first-degree from second-degree murder.3
Cf. 9th Cir. Model Crim. Jury Instr. 8.89 (2003).
Because premeditation necessarily describes a subjective state of mind about which the defendant rarely provides any direct testimony or evidence, it is almost always an element that must be proved by reference to “the defendant‘s conduct ... in the light of the surrounding circumstances.” LAFAVE § 14.7(a) at 480; see also Free, 841 F.2d at 325 (“Premeditation may ... be established circumstantially.“). In general, the element is typically established through proof that falls into at least one of “[t]hree categories of evidence“: (1) facts about how and what the defendant did prior to the actual killing which show he was engaged in ... planning activity; (2) facts about the defendant‘s prior relationship and conduct with the victim from which motive may be inferred; and (3) facts about the nature of the killing from which it may be inferred that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed [the victim] according to a preconceived design. LAFAVE § 14.7(a) at 480; see also Free, 841 F.2d at 325 (“Relevant circumstantial evidence includes, inter alia, the defendant‘s prior relationship to the victim, the defendant‘s carrying of the murder weapon to the scene, and the manner of the killing.“). We do not suggest that these three methods of proving premeditation constitute a rigid or exclusive list. Rather, we simply observe that evidence of planning activity, motive, or the cool or methodical nature of the killing is evidence that will tend to support a finding of premeditation, although motive standing alone is the least probative of the three.
In Begay‘s case, there is no evidence sufficiently supporting any of these factors, nor is there any evidence that,
Turning to the other two forms of evidence that typically support a finding of premeditation—planning activity and the cool or methodical nature of the killing—the record does not contain sufficient evidence with respect to either. As to planning activity, the only evidence that could possibly be said to support an inference that the murders here were planned is the fact that Begay had a gun in his truck. However, Loren Clark, the government‘s only witness to the actual shooting,5 testified that he recognized the specific gunshots being fired “[b]ecause [he] used to go shooting with [the defendant] and [they] shot this [particular] rifle a couple of times [before].” The mere fact that an individual has in his possession a weapon does not support premeditation if the weapon is one that he routinely uses for lawful, nonviolent purposes. As the District of Columbia Circuit has held: “That [the defendant] used a knife to accomplish the murder is not probative of premeditation and deliberation because he did not procure it specifically for that purpose but rather carried it about with him as a matter of course.” Austin, 382 F.2d at 139. The same is true here: that Begay had in his truck a gun that the record reflects he regularly used for recreation cannot, without more, support premeditation. There is no other evidence in the record suggesting that Begay engaged in any “planning activity” prior to the murder.6
Nor does the record contain any evidence that the manner of the killing was cool and methodical. To the contrary, the record reflects that, despite his practice and experience with the weapon used during the shooting, and despite the fact that he was only three to four feet away from the victim when firing, Begay missed a number of times. This suggests agitation, excitement, or frenzy, not the “cool mind” of premeditation. Moreover, given the lack of any evidence shedding light on the circumstances giving rise to the shooting, the sheer number of shots is just as likely to cut against a finding of premeditation as it is to cut in favor of such a finding. “The
In short, the government produced no evidence supporting premeditation in this case. The dearth of evidence with respect to that element is illustrated by the nature of the government‘s arguments in favor of premeditation made to us and, more important, to the jury. In its opening brief on appeal, the government seeks to mislead the court, asserting falsely that the record contains sufficient evidence of premeditation because Clark testified that he “watched as [the] defendant calmly returned to his truck” to retrieve the gun, ”methodically retrieved the rifle,” ”methodically held the gun up to his shoulder,” fired nine shots, and then ”calmly returned to the truck.” Indeed, the government asserts seven times in its brief that the record contains evidence that Begay‘s demeanor was “calm” and asserts seven times that the record shows Begay was “methodical“; the government also asserts that the record shows Begay behaved “casually” and “thoughtfully.” However, as the government finally conceded under persistent questioning at oral argument, the record contains no support at all for any of these characterizations. Clark was the only witness at trial who saw Begay prior to and during the shooting, and nothing in Clark‘s testimony so much as suggests that Begay behaved in a calm, casual, thoughtful, or methodical fashion. That the government felt it necessary to rely on such unfounded assertions in order to demonstrate the sufficiency of its premeditation “evidence” is telling. Equally important, the government‘s numerous misrepresentations to the court, designed to persuade us to affirm a conviction that necessitates reversal, raise serious questions as to the propriety of the prosecution‘s conduct that requires further inquiry by the court.
The misrepresentations that the prosecution made to the jury may have had an even more serious consequence. The government‘s erroneous statement at closing argument may well have resulted in Begay‘s convictions for first-degree rather than second-degree murder. In a clearly incorrect statement of the law, the trial prosecutor told the jury, “[Begay] intended to kill the occupants of the vehicle. That‘s premeditation.” The prosecutor later reiterated, “when you fire multiple rounds with a rifle into a vehicle ..., that establishes an intent to kill, that establishes his premeditation.” Of course, it is elementary that intent to commit murder does not establish premeditation. To the contrary, whereas intent is a necessary element of both first-degree and second-degree murder, premeditation is what distinguishes first-degree murder from second-degree murder. Quintero, 21 F.3d at 890 n. 3. We need not determine whether the prosecutor‘s erroneous statements in
In sum, the testimony of the government‘s sole eyewitness, taken in the light most favorable to the government, shows nothing more than that Begay flashed his lights at the victims’ car, walked over to the car from his truck, stood by the passenger‘s side of the car for approximately a minute in a position from which he could talk with its occupants, returned to his truck, retrieved his rifle, walked back to the car, and fired eight or nine shots at the victims. There is no evidence whatsoever as to what brought about the murders or as to the defendant‘s demeanor or state of mind prior to or during the shooting—save for the testimony that he was “pretty drunk.” Based on the evidence adduced at trial, it is equally likely that the defendant committed the murders in a fit of rage or otherwise in the heat of passion caused by his exchange with the victims immediately prior to the shooting as it is that he committed the murders with a “cool mind” after reflection. The evidence simply does not permit a rational observer to reach the latter conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, any determination that Begay did in fact commit the murders with a cool mind after reflection would be pure speculation. We therefore conclude that these facts are insufficient to establish premeditation, the essential element of the crime of first-degree murder.
III. REVERSAL OF MURDER CONVICTIONS
Our conclusion that the evidence of premeditation was insufficient to support convictions for first-degree murder necessarily dictates the remedy we must provide: “Where, as here, the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction on the statutory offense upon which judgment was entered, we are required to vacate that judgment and to enter a judgment of acquittal on that charge.” United States v. Vasquez-Chan, 978 F.2d 546, 554 n. 4 (9th Cir.1992). Reversal on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence ordinarily requires the automatic vacatur of the challenged conviction and the concomitant bar to punishment or further prosecution on the charge.
There is, however, a narrow exception to the general rule. Under that exception, in addition to vacating a conviction on the charge on which the jury returned a verdict, the court may in some circumstances enter a judgment of conviction on a lesser included offense. Here, that lesser-included offense would be second-degree murder. A judgment on the lesser-included offense may be entered in cases in which the evidence is insufficient with respect to the charge of conviction but sufficient with respect to the lesser-included offense. Following the approach adopted in other circuits, this court has held that an appellate court “may direct a lower court to enter a judgment of conviction on a lesser offense after finding a jury‘s verdict insufficient to support its guilty verdict on a greater offense” only “in some instances.” Vasquez-Chan, 978 F.2d at 553-54 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Dinkane, 17 F.3d 1192, 1198 (9th Cir.1994) (same); cf. United States v. Jose, 425 F.3d 1237, 1247 (9th Cir.2005). Specifically, we have held that:
[T]he conditions necessary to the entry of such a judgment are as follows: (1) the lesser offense must be a lesser-included offense—a “subset” of the greater one; (2) the jury must have been explicitly instructed that it could find the defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense and must have been properly instructed on the elements of that offense; and (3) the government must request on appeal that judgment be entered against the defendant on the lesser offense.
Vasquez-Chan, 978 F.2d at 554 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). We would add the obvious qualification that the element as to which sufficient evidence was missing with respect to the greater offense must not be a requisite element of the lesser offense as well. See Dinkane, 17 F.3d at 1198.7
In this case, the first and second Vasquez-Chan conditions are satisfied, as the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for second-degree murder, a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder, and the district court properly instructed the jury that it could convict on that lesser charge. So, too, is the additional qualification we have noted. However, the third “necessary” condition set forth in Vasquez-Chan is not satisfied: the government at no point met the requirement that it “must request on appeal that judgment be entered against the defendant on the lesser offense.” Id. at 554 (emphasis added). As we have previously held, courts “apply th[e waiver] rule with some vigor against criminal defendants; we should be no less vigorous in applying it against the government.” Moore v. Czerniak, 534 F.3d 1128, 1152 (9th Cir.2008). As Vasquez-Chan makes abundantly clear, it is the government‘s obligation to request that an appellate court convert a defendant‘s judgment of conviction from one predicated on a charge as to which the evidence was legally insufficient to one predicated on a charge on which the defendant was not actually convicted by a jury of his peers.8 Imposing the burden on the
IV. AFFIRMANCE OF FIREARM CONVICTIONS
Our holding with respect to the insufficiency of the evidence of premeditation does not affect Begay‘s two convictions for using a firearm “in relation to any crime of violence.”
V. WITNESS INTIMIDATION
Our holding with respect to the insufficiency of the evidence of premeditation renders moot all of Begay‘s other challenges on appeal, save one. That challenge might, if upheld, affect his convictions for using a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence. Begay argues that the district court improperly admitted evidence that he intimidated Clark and Lee, two of the witnesses to the crime. Begay claims that the evidence constituted improper character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and was unduly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403; however, he acknowledges that no objection to the evidence was raised at trial and that its admission is therefore reviewed for plain error. See id. at 1432. Here, there was no error at all, as a defendant‘s threats against a witness are admissible to show consciousness of guilt. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir.1996). Moreover, the district court did not err in concluding that the probative value of Begay‘s threats outweighed any unfair prejudice.
The record did not contain sufficient evidence that Begay committed “premeditated killings” and therefore the government failed to prove its charges of first-degree murder. Accordingly, we REVERSE Begay‘s convictions for first-degree murder and the life sentences attached to those counts. We AFFIRM Begay‘s two firearms convictions and the thirty-five year sentence imposed on those counts.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in this court‘s opinion, but write separately regarding Part III, which deals with the reversal of Begay‘s murder convictions. If I were writing on a clean slate in the Ninth Circuit, I would direct the district court in this case to enter a judgment of conviction on the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. However, I am bound by United States v. Vasquez-Chan, 978 F.2d 546 (9th Cir.1992), which mandates a procedure that when, as in this case, the conviction for the greater offense is in issue and may be reversed, the government must request such possible relief in its opening brief.
This requirement is not the rule in similar cases in other circuits. In DeMarrias v. United States, 453 F.2d 211, 215 (8th Cir.1972), for example, the court determined that implicit in a jury‘s finding of guilt on a second-degree murder charge was a finding of guilt on the lesser-included charge of manslaughter. Therefore, when the court set aside the second-degree murder conviction for insufficient evidence, it directed “a remand for resentencing on the voluntary manslaughter charge as an appropriate means to accomplish substantial justice.” DeMarrias, 453 F.2d at 215;1 see also United States v. Cobb, 558 F.2d 486, 489 (8th Cir.1977).
Additionally, the Supreme Court has stated concerning this issue:
Consistent with the views expressed by the District of Columbia Circuit, federal appellate courts appear to have uniformly concluded that they may direct the entry of judgment for a lesser included offense when a conviction for a greater offense is reversed on grounds that affect only the greater offense. This Court has noted the use of such a practice with approval.
Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292, 306 (1996) (citations omitted). Both Rutledge and DeMarrias cite with approval the views of the D.C. Circuit in Austin v. United States, 382 F.2d 129, 140-43 (D.C.Cir.1967), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Foster, 783 F.2d 1082, 1085 (D.C.Cir.1986) (en banc).
As a visiting judge in the Ninth Circuit, I am bound by Vasquez-Chan, which obligates the government, in a case such as this one, to request on appeal a lesser-included offense before the court may enter such judgment. The Vasquez-Chan rule has been on the books for seventeen years, and other Ninth Circuit cases have availed themselves of this rule. See United States v. Jose, 425 F.3d 1237, 1247 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Dinkane, 17 F.3d 1192, 1198 (9th Cir.1994). I do observe that this requirement may be a salutary one because it provides notice to the defendant that while a court might not sustain the greater offense, it might sus
Accordingly, I concur in Part III of the opinion because I am bound by the Vasquez-Chan requirements relating to the entry of judgment for a lesser-included offense in appropriate cases. As the opinion of the court has observed, these requirements were not fully met by the government.