United States v. Harvey M. Renville
19 Fed. R. Serv. 465, 779 F.2d 430, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25565 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Assimilated Crimes Act (ACA) applies where specific acts of abuse, although involving family members, are explicitly excluded from a state's incest definition (incorporated by the Indian Major Crimes Act) and precisely fall under the state's rape statute, as federal law does not cover the precise acts. A child victim's statements identifying a household abuser to a physician are admissible under the medical diagnosis hearsay exception (Rule 803(4)) if pertinent to comprehensive treatment, and a child victim's recanted accusations to law enforcement can be admitted under the residual hearsay exception (Rule 803(24)) if sufficient indicia of trustworthiness are present and the child is available for cross-examination.
Facts:
- Harvey Renville, an Indian, resided with his family on the Sisseton Indian Reservation in South Dakota, where he was employed as a tribal police officer.
- Renville engaged in acts of cunnilingus and anal intercourse with his eleven-year-old stepdaughter on several occasions over the past year.
- Renville threatened to harm his stepdaughter if she disclosed the abuse.
- In March 1982, during a detention hearing for the victim's half-brother, Joe testified that the victim had admitted being sexually abused by Renville.
- Roberts County Deputy Sheriff Holly Butrum interviewed the victim to determine if she should be removed from her home, during which the victim identified Renville as her abuser and described the anal intercourse.
- A few weeks later, while in foster care, the victim was examined by Dr. Clark Likness, a family practice physician, and recounted acts of anal intercourse and cunnilingus performed by Renville.
- At trial, the victim recanted her earlier accusations against Renville, denying she told anyone except Deputy Sheriff Butrum that he was the individual who abused her.
Procedural Posture:
- Harvey Renville was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual abuse of his eleven-year-old stepdaughter in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
- Renville appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, raising three contentions regarding jurisdiction and the admissibility of evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the Assimilated Crimes Act (ACA) apply to an Indian defendant's sexual abuse of his stepdaughter on a reservation when the Indian Major Crimes Act (IMCA) incorporates a state incest statute that specifically excludes conduct amounting to rape, and the defendant's acts constitute rape under state law? 2. Are a child sexual abuse victim's statements to a physician identifying a household abuser admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) as statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment? 3. Are a child sexual abuse victim's extra-judicial statements to a deputy sheriff identifying the abuser admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(24) (the residual hearsay exception) when the victim later recants at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - John R. Gibson
1. No, Renville's conduct was not punishable as incest under federal law via the IMCA, and thus the ACA correctly applied through the state rape law. The court rejected Renville's contention that his conduct was punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (IMCA), which prohibits incest by an Indian and defines/punishes incest according to state law, because the South Dakota incest statute explicitly excludes conduct "amounting to rape." Renville's actions—anal intercourse and cunnilingus—fall squarely within the state rape statute's definition of "sexual penetration." Therefore, his conduct was outside the state definition of incest adopted in the IMCA and was not made punishable by federal law, allowing the ACA to apply and incorporate the state rape law. The court distinguished Williams v. United States, emphasizing that in Williams, a federal law already covered the "precise acts" and the state sought to enlarge that definition; here, federal law did not precisely cover the specific acts of cunnilingus and anal intercourse as common law sexual intercourse offenses. 2. Yes, the district court did not err in permitting Dr. Likness to testify to the victim's statements identifying Renville as her abuser under Rule 803(4). Applying the United States v. Iron Shell two-part test, the court found that statements of identity in child abuse cases, particularly when the abuser is a household member, are "reasonably pertinent" to diagnosis and treatment. This is because child abuse involves emotional and psychological injuries where the abuser's identity is crucial for a comprehensive treatment plan and for preventing recurrence. Physicians also have a state-mandated obligation to prevent an abused child from being returned to an unsafe environment. Furthermore, Dr. Likness explained to the victim that his inquiry into the abuser's identity was important for her diagnosis and treatment, which ensured the victim's motivation to speak truthfully, satisfying the first prong of the Iron Shell test. 3. Yes, the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Deputy Sheriff Butrum to testify to the victim's statements identifying Renville as her abuser under Rule 803(24). The court found significant indicia of reliability, satisfying the trustworthiness requirement of the United States v. Carlson test for the residual hearsay exception. These indicia included: (1) the declarant (victim) testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination, allowing her to explain her changed story; (2) the declarant admitted making the out-of-court statements; (3) the victim made almost identical statements accusing Renville to numerous state and medical personnel; (4) the statements were made soon after the abuse revelation; and (5) the victim's young age may contribute to trustworthiness. The court also recognized a strong need for these statements, as the victim was the only one who could identify the abuser, and her recantation necessitated showing her earlier consistent accusations.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the Assimilated Crimes Act and the Indian Major Crimes Act, particularly when state laws define overlapping but mutually exclusive crimes, providing guidance on how federal courts should determine jurisdiction when federal statutes incorporate state law definitions. It creates a critical exception to the general rule that statements of fault or identity are inadmissible under the medical diagnosis hearsay exception (Rule 803(4)), recognizing the unique nature of child abuse and the comprehensive treatment it requires beyond purely physical injuries. Furthermore, the opinion provides a robust framework for admitting recanted child victim statements under the residual hearsay exception (Rule 803(24)), emphasizing factors like the victim's availability for cross-examination and consistent prior accusations, which are vital for prosecuting child abuse cases where victims may be hesitant or coerced into changing their testimony.
