United States v. Charley

• Decision Date: 11 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-10133,19-10133
• Citation: 1 F.4th 637
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Seraphina CHARLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

1 F.4th 637

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Seraphina CHARLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-10133

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 2, 2021 Phoenix, Arizona

Filed June 11, 2021

Molly A. Karlin (argued), Assistant Federal Public Defender; Jon M. Sands, Federal Public Defender; Office of the Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, Arizona; for Defendant-Appellant.

Karla Hotis DeLord (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; Krissa M. Lanham, Appellate Division Chief; Michael Bailey, United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, Phoenix, Arizona; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before: Carlos T. Bea and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges, and Kathleen Cardone,^* District Judge.

Concurrence by Judge Bumatay

BEA, Circuit Judge:

Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibits evidence about a defendant's character trait to prove that the defendant committed the charged crime when he acted in accordance with that character trait. The rule is rooted in the "basic premise of our criminal justice system" that "[o]ur law punishes people for what they do, not who they are." Buck v. Davis , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 759, 778, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017) (Roberts, C.J.). Courts, as gatekeepers of evidence, are tasked with ensuring that a jury convicts a defendant based only on his alleged conduct and mental state underlying the charged crime, not based on his generalized disposition or tendency to act in a particular way—however offensive his behavior may have been in the past. In the case before us, the jury heard such character evidence and ultimately rendered a guilty verdict, raising uncertainties about the conviction.

A jury convicted Defendant-Appellant Seraphina Charley of three counts, which included two counts of assault within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States: a Navajo reservation. Her convictions stem from an incident with her boyfriend, whom she hit in the head with a piece of rebar after, she claimed, he attacked her while he was drunk. Charley claimed self-defense at trial, testifying that she feared for her life when she swung the rebar and knocked him unconscious. In its rebuttal case, the Government presented evidence that, roughly two years before the charged assault, Charley assaulted her stepmother and sister on separate occasions. We must consider whether this evidence proves "nothing but the defendant's criminal propensities." United States v. Sneezer , 983 F.2d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citation omitted). If, on the other hand, the evidence is relevant for some other purpose—using a propensity-free chain of reasoning— Rule 404 does not prevent its admission.

I. BACKGROUND

The unfortunate events that gave rise to this prosecution occurred on a Navajo reservation in the early hours of March 6, 2018. At 3:34 a.m., Charley called 911 and reported that her boyfriend, Merle Begay, was unconscious and bleeding profusely. Crying for help, Charley identified herself as Hannah Charley (rather than use her real name: Seraphina Charley) and told the 911 operator that a masked man had come to the house, hit Begay in the head with a metal pipe, and then fled.

Around 4:34 a.m., Navajo Nation Police Sergeant Erwin Toddy arrived at the scene. Charley again identified herself as Hannah (not Seraphina) and said that she was born in November 2001 (another lie: she was born in December 1988). Charley then spun a story about what had happened that night: she and Begay were drinking and watching television when they heard a noise outside; Begay went outside to investigate and returned several minutes later holding a piece of rebar before collapsing onto the floor. As Sergeant Toddy walked through the house, he smelled alcohol. Begay lay unconscious on the ground next to a piece of rebar, with a large pool of blood by his head. Paramedics intubated Begay and flew him to a trauma center, where he was treated for brain injuries

.¹

FBI Agent Jennifer Mulhollen arrived at the scene around 6:30 a.m. After Sergeant Toddy briefed her, Agent Mulhollen spoke with Charley. Charley again lied, falsely identifying herself as Hannah and stating that she was born in November 2001. Charley also repeated her story about the masked man who supposedly attacked Begay outside the home. Agent Mulhollen and Sergeant Toddy later searched the premises, but neither found any blood or evidence of a struggle outside; they found blood only inside the house where first responders found Begay. Sergeant Toddy ultimately arrested Charley for public intoxication and booked her into the local jail.²

Around 3:00 p.m. later that same day, while still detained at the jail, Agent Mulhollen interviewed Charley for a second time. Agent Mulhollen summarized the physical evidence found at the scene and challenged Charley's version of events. Charley then admitted that she had lied about her name, date of birth, and how Begay was injured. She explained that Begay had attacked her, and that she had hit him in the head with the piece of rebar in self-defense. Charley also admitted that she had fabricated the story about the masked attacker because she was trying to avoid trouble.

A superseding indictment ultimately charged Charley with three counts: (1) assault resulting in serious bodily injury within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 1153 ; (2) assault with a dangerous weapon within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of § 113(a)(3) and § 1153 ; and (3) false statements to a government official, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Charley pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.

At trial, Charley asserted a self-defense claim.³ Charley testified that, on the night of the incident, she and Begay were drinking when Begay became very intoxicated. After he suddenly became angry, he threw Charley onto the bed, held her down, choked her, and ripped off some of her clothes. Begay had a knife in his pocket and grabbed some rope to tie her arms and wrists. Charley was able to shake loose, but Begay warned her not to move. Begay then turned his back briefly, as if he were getting something else from behind him, when Charley grabbed a piece of rebar laying on the floor of the bedroom. She hit him in the back of the head three times. Charley testified that she hit Begay because she feared for life.

Charley also testified about three violent episodes leading up to the charged offense in which she claimed that Begay had attacked her. During one such incident, about a week before the charged offense, Begay became so violent that Charley ran out of the house in the middle of the night. Running after her, Begay caught up to her on the road and grabbed hold of her neck. Two passing motorists observed the altercation, stopped their car, and intervened. The motorists took Charley to their home for the night and brought her to her aunt's house in the morning. All three of them testified, corroborating Charley's account of that night. Their testimony included descriptions of Charley's injuries.

During the Government's cross-examination, Charley admitted that she had lied to both Sergeant Toddy and Agent Mulhollen about her name, date of birth, and how Begay was injured. Charley also admitted that she had provided a fake name to law enforcement officers on at least two other, uncharged occasions. Charley reasoned that she had lied because she knew that Begay's family was dangerous and she believed that they would seek revenge against her.

During its rebuttal case, the Government sought to present evidence about two prior incidents that involved Charley and her family, but not Begay.⁴ The Government argued that it was entitled to rebut the defense's evidence of prior incidents involving Begay purportedly attacking Charley with its own evidence of prior incidents involving Charley, even though those incidents did not involve Begay. The Government argued that the testimony would show that Charley has a tendency to drink and then get into fights. The district court overruled Charley's objection based on Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, but it provided a limiting instruction directing the jury to consider the evidence "only for its bearing, if any, on the question of [Charley]’s intent, motive, and identity and for no other purpose."

The Government then called three witnesses to testify about Charley's two prior incidents. First, Charley's stepmother testified that, in June 2016, about two years before the charged assault, Charley came home intoxicated, kicked the front door, and yelled profanities at her. Feeling threatened, Charley's stepmother managed to get away and call 911. Second, Charley's sister testified that, in December 2015, about two and a half years before the charged assault, Charley became intoxicated and hit her on the head with a coffee mug, for which she required stitches at the hospital. Justin Banally, the responding officer, also testified about the incident with Charley's sister.

The jury ultimately found Charley guilty on all three counts. The district court sentenced her to concurrent terms of seventy-eight months of imprisonment for Counts 1 and 2 (the assault counts) and sixty months of imprisonment for Count 3 (the false statement count), followed by thirty-six months of supervised release. The district court also ordered Charley to comply with the standard conditions of supervised release, which included a condition prohibiting Charley from communicating with felons without prior permission. Charley offers a variety of challenges to both her convictions and sentence.

II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo claims of insufficient evidence to support a jury conviction and a district court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. United States v....