United States v. Willis
826 F.3d 1265, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11207, 100 Fed. R. Serv. 831 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Evidence 413 creates a presumption in favor of admitting evidence of a defendant's prior sexual assaults in a sexual assault case if the evidence meets threshold requirements of being a sexual assault and relevant, and is not substantially outweighed by prejudice under Rule 403. Custodial statements are admissible if the defendant, after initially invoking Miranda rights, later initiates further communication and knowingly and voluntarily waives those rights. Evidence of a victim's past sexual behavior is generally inadmissible under Rule 412, especially when the defendant admits the sexual act and the evidence is irrelevant to the issue of consent.
Facts:
- In the summer and fall of 2013, K.M., a seventeen-year-old, was babysitting children at her cousin's home when Ivan Bennett Willis arrived with his girlfriend, Christi Bear, and left his son with K.M. while driving Christi to work.
- Willis returned alone and began making sexual advances toward K.M., which she rejected.
- Despite K.M.'s continued objections, Willis took her into the bathroom, removed her shorts and underwear, removed his pants, pressed his body against hers, and tried to make her touch him.
- Willis lifted K.M. onto the sink and tried to penetrate her; when she resisted and slid off, he pushed her, causing her to stumble.
- Willis then penetrated K.M. from behind; K.M. stopped resisting at this point because she was scared and 'didn't know what to do.'
- Willis left the house but later returned, finding K.M. crying, and asked her if it felt like he forced her, to which she replied 'yes.'
- K.M. called her cousin, Jamee Black, who then called Wesley Bear (Jamee's boyfriend) home; Mr. Bear found K.M. crying.
- Mr. Bear's three-year-old daughter stated, 'Daddy, I saw Uncle Ivan kissing [K.M.] in the bathroom,' prompting K.M. to explain that Willis had forced himself on her, leading Mr. Bear to call the BIA police.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 12, 2013, a federal grand jury returned a single-count indictment against Ivan Bennett Willis in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, alleging aggravated sexual abuse.
- In a pretrial motion, the government gave notice of its intent to offer evidence of two prior sexual assaults by Willis under Fed. R. Evid. 413.
- Willis filed a motion to exclude his juvenile records and all information gleaned from them.
- Willis moved to suppress statements he made during a custodial interview with federal agents.
- Willis also moved under Fed. R. Evid. 412 to admit evidence of specific instances of K.M.’s sexual behavior.
- The district court admitted the Rule 413 evidence and denied Willis’s motions regarding juvenile records, suppression of statements, and Rule 412 evidence.
- The case proceeded to a two-day jury trial in the district court, which resulted in a guilty verdict for Willis.
- Willis (Appellant) appealed the district court’s evidentiary rulings, his due process claim, and the denial of his suppression motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with the United States of America as the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by (1) admitting evidence of Ivan Bennett Willis's prior sexual assaults under Fed. R. Evid. 413 and 403; (2) denying his motion to exclude juvenile records on due process grounds; (3) denying his motion to suppress custodial statements made after he initially requested counsel but later initiated further communication and waived his Miranda rights; and (4) excluding evidence of the victim's past sexual behavior under Fed. R. Evid. 412, when Willis admitted to the sexual act?
Opinions:
Majority - McHugh, Circuit Judge
No, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or in denying the suppression motions. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to admit evidence of two prior sexual assaults by Ivan Bennett Willis under Federal Rule of Evidence 413. The court found that Rule 413 creates a presumption in favor of admitting such evidence, provided it meets three threshold requirements: (1) the defendant is accused of a sexual assault, (2) the evidence is of another sexual assault by the defendant, and (3) the evidence is relevant. Regarding the first prior incident (with A.M.), the court found sufficient evidence to establish an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) because A.M. testified Willis touched her breasts, laid her down, and got on top of her despite her protests, and his actions could be considered physical force. For the second incident (with A.N.), the court concluded a sexual act occurred in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2) while A.N. was incapacitated and unable to consent, as she awoke with Willis on top of her, in pain, and without pants/underwear. The court also determined the evidence was relevant under Rule 403, as the only disputed issue at trial was consent, and the prior acts demonstrated a propensity directly relevant to that issue, despite a five-year lapse and Willis's juvenile status. The court rejected Willis’s due process argument regarding the disclosure of his juvenile records, noting that there is no constitutional right to expungement and Willis had already disclosed the prior incidents to federal agents. The court affirmed the denial of Willis's motion to suppress his custodial statements, finding that under Edwards v. Arizona and Minnick v. Mississippi, Willis initiated further communication after initially invoking his right to counsel, and then knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights after being re-advised. Finally, the court upheld the exclusion of evidence regarding K.M.’s prior sexual behavior under Federal Rule of Evidence 412. Willis admitted to having sex with K.M., and the proposed evidence of her having sex with her boyfriend was irrelevant to whether she consented to sex with Willis, as distinguished from United States v. Begay. Furthermore, Willis was able to present his defense theory about K.M.'s motive to lie through other testimony, rendering any error harmless. The court also found no plain error in the vouching claim and rejected cumulative error as there were not multiple errors.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the broad admissibility of prior sexual assault evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 413 in the Tenth Circuit, emphasizing a 'presumption in favor of admission' and a flexible interpretation of relevance and Rule 403 balancing. It also clarifies that neither a defendant's juvenile status nor a significant time lapse between incidents automatically renders such evidence inadmissible. The ruling on juvenile records limits due process claims regarding expungement, particularly when a defendant self-discloses, and the affirmation of the Miranda waiver highlights the importance of the 'accused initiates' exception to the Edwards rule. The case further provides a strong example of how Rule 412 shields victims from irrelevant inquiries into their sexual history when consent to the charged act is the sole issue and the defendant admits the sexual contact.
