United States v. Reza-Ramos

Decision Date09 March 2016
Docket NumberNo. 11–10029.,11–10029.
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Victor Manuel REZA–RAMOS, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Jon M. Sands, Federal Public Defender, and M. Edith Cunningham (argued), Assistant Federal Public Defender, Tucson, AZ, for DefendantAppellant.

John S. Leonardo, United States Attorney, and Bruce M. Ferg (argued), Assistant United States Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, M. MARGARET McKEOWN, and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

IKUTA

, Circuit Judge:

Victor Reza–Ramos, a non-Indian, appeals from his judgment of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1111

, the federal murder statute, following his jury trial for the murder of Jose Flores on the Tohono O'odham Indian reservation in Arizona. We conclude that § 1111 was applicable to Reza–Ramos under the Indian General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152, which (among other things) makes federal criminal law applicable in federal enclaves when the defendant is a non-Indian and the victim is an Indian, because the government adduced sufficient evidence to establish that Flores was an Indian. We also hold that the evidence introduced at trial, taken in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient to establish that Reza–Ramos acted with premeditation. We therefore affirm Reza–Ramos's conviction for first degree premeditated murder.1 Nevertheless, we vacate Reza–Ramos's conviction for felony murder, because the district court erred in defining the term "burglary" in § 1111

by reference to Arizona's third-degree burglary statute, and this error was not harmless.

I

The Kisto Ranch is located on the Tohono O'odham Indian reservation near Sells, Arizona. Fred Narcho, nephew of the ranch's deceased owner, hired Jose Flores to take care of the ranch after the owner died. The ranch contained several structures, including the ranch house and a separate carport with walls and doors made of sticks extending from the ground to the roof, held together by horizontal supports. A black truck was parked in the carport.

Narcho and Flores planned to spend March 25, 2003, branding cattle. On March 24, Flores mentioned over the phone to Narcho that he had a Mexican visitor at the ranch. When Narcho arrived at the ranch on the morning of March 25, Flores was not waiting for him at the corral or the shop. Narcho tried the ranch house, but it was locked. Narcho noticed blood on the ground, a bloody rock, and drag marks leading over the end of a hill to a shallow ravine. There Narcho found Flores's battered, bloody corpse with three big rocks on his chest and one on his face, and a bloody sweater next to him. His face and head were "all smashed up."

Narcho notified the police, who arrived and started their investigation. The investigators discovered two beds in the ranch house and both appeared to have been used. They later learned that Flores slept in the bedroom on the west end of the ranch house, which adjoined a living room containing a fireplace.

Outside, at the northwest corner of the house, the investigators discovered a scuffle area. Within that area, police found a baseball cap with blood spatter, blood stains on the house and in the dirt, drag marks, and a metal scoop end of a broken fireplace shovel.

Investigators followed the drag marks down a hill into a shallow ravine, where Flores's body lay. Investigators found a bloody iron bar, later determined to be the handle of the fireplace shovel, on Flores's chest. A forensic analysis revealed hairs on the broken end of the shovel. An autopsy would later show that Flores died of "blunt force injuries to the head

" consistent with a beating from the rock or the shovel handle. The injuries were caused by 60 separate strikes to the head and torso. Blood evidence around the body was consistent with the killer kneeling next to Flores while striking him.

Inside the carport, the police found the black truck. One of the truck's windows was broken and there were blood stains on the exterior and interior of the truck on the driver's side and on the steering wheel. The police also found fingerprints on the truck that did not belong to Flores. On some shelves next to the truck, investigators found blood-stained clothing covered up by a blanket. Police also found blood stains on nearby tools, including a broken knife handle, knife blade, hammer, and vice grips.

In January 2004, a Mexican citizen, Victor Manuel Reza–Ramos, was arrested in Mesa for simple drug possession. His prints were taken and entered into the database. In the spring of 2004, these prints were matched to prints taken at the scene of Flores's murder.

In 2006, federal prosecutors charged Reza–Ramos with first-degree premeditated murder and felony murder. Because the murder occurred on an Indian reservation, the indictment cited 18 U.S.C. §§ 13(a)

, 1111(a), 1151, and 1152. Section 1111(a) is the federal murder statute which criminalizes, among other things, "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought," including any "willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing." It also criminalizes felony murder, which is any murder "committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery." Id.2 Sections 1151 and 1152 make § 1111 applicable on an Indian reservation. Section 1152 provides that "the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States ... shall extend to the Indian country," and § 1151 defines "Indian country" as including "all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government."3 Finally, 18 U.S.C. § 13, the Assimilated Crimes Act ("ACA"), allows the government to apply state law in a federal enclave under certain circumstances. Specifically, a person who "is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State ... in which such place is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time of such act or omission, shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment." 18 U.S.C. § 13(a)

.4

The indictment alleged that Reza–Ramos "intentionally kill[ed] and murder[ed] Jose Flores, an Indian, by beating him to death." The government proposed four alternative theories of first degree murder. First, the indictment alleged that Reza–Ramos committed murder with premeditation and malice aforethought. Second, the indictment alleged three alternative felony murder theories, that Reza–Ramos committed murder: (1) "during the attempt to perpetrate the robbery of Jose Flores of a Chevrolet Silverado truck, a felony, in violation of [Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann.] §§ 13–1001

, 1902;" (2) during "the perpetration of the burglary of a nonresidential structure with the intent to commit the felony of robbery of a Chevrolet Silverado truck, a felony, in violation of [Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann.] § 13–15[06](A);" and (3) during "the perpetration of the burglary of a nonresidential structure with intent to commit the felony of theft of property" in violation of [Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann.] § 13–1506(A).5 The state statutes define attempted robbery, § 13–1001 (defining attempt); 13–1902 (defining robbery); and burglary, § 13–1506(A) (defining third degree burglary as the "[e]ntering or remaining unlawfully in or on a nonresidential structure or in a fenced commercial or residential yard with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.").

At trial, the government presented an exhibit showing Flores's death certificate, listing Flores's race as "4/4 Tohono O'odham." The government also introduced the medical examiner's report from the scene of the murder, which described Flores as "Native American." One of the government's witnesses, RoseMarie Savala, testified that she had a "relationship" with Flores from 1998 until his death, and that Flores was a member of the Tohono O'odham tribe. Narcho, who hired Flores to take care of the Kisto Ranch, testified that Flores lived and worked on the Tohono O'odham reservation in Arizona, and spoke in Tohono O'odham.

At the close of the government's case, Reza–Ramos moved for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29

, arguing insufficiency of the evidence of both first degree premeditated murder and felony murder. Reza–Ramos also argued that the indictment improperly charged him with felony murder premised on the Arizona offense of burglary of a non-residential structure. The district court denied the motion. Reza–Ramos unsuccessfully renewed the motion after the defense rested and after the verdict.

The jury instructions stated that to convict Reza–Ramos, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "Jose L. Flores was an Indian." The jury instructions on "burglary" stated:

In order for you to find that the defendant committed a burglary with intent to commit theft, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
The defendant entered, or remained unlawfully, in or on a nonresidential structure or in a fenced commercial or residential yard, and
The defendant entered or remained unlawfully with the intent to commit any theft; and
This unlawful or unprivileged entry occurred on the Tohono O'odham Indian reservation within the district of Arizona.
"Nonresidential structure" means any structure other than a residential structure and includes a retail establishment.6

The jury convicted Reza–Ramos of premeditated murder, felony murder premised upon commission of burglary with intent to commit theft, and felony murder premised upon commission of burglary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • State v. Nobles
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 28, 2020
    ...deemed relevant various types of conduct showing a defendant's connection with a particular tribe. See, e.g., United States v. Reza-Ramos , 816 F.3d 1110, 1122 (9th Cir. 2016) (defendant "spoke the tribal language" and "had lived and worked on the reservation for some time"); LaBuff , 658 F......
  • United States v. Ortner
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • January 25, 2023
    ...to demonstrate Mr. Ortner possessed "some quantum" of Indian blood, as required under extant law. Cf. United States v. Reza-Ramos, 816 F.3d 1110, 1121 (9th Cir. 2016) ("Reliable or undisputed documentation that a defendant has Indian blood . . . may meet [the blood-quantum] requirement."); ......
  • United States v. Lawrence
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • August 16, 2019
    ...held state burglary statutes could be too broad to support burglary as a predicate to federal felony murder. See United States v. Reza-Ramos, 816 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2016). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that counsel are not ineffective for failing to anticipate a decision in a later case......
  • Rogers v. Muniz
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • July 5, 2016
    ...to kill the victim does not preclude a reasonable juror from finding sufficient evidence of premeditation." United States v. Reza-Ramos, 816 F.3d 1110, 1124 (9th Cir. 2016). Here, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that "[t]his sufficiency question is the tougher one, largely because there wa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT