United States v. Hiett , 131 F. App'x 990 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 24, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30846
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STEVEN THOMAS HIETT; TRINI DEANN HIETT,
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:02-CR-20023-2-PM-A
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Steven Thomas Hiett and Trini Deann Hiett appeal their
convictions for assaulting a child under the age of sixteen
years, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6) and 2. The Hietts
contend that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient
to support their convictions, (2) the district court erred by
instructing the jury as to aiding and abetting and (3) the
district court abused its discretion by denying their motions for
a judgment of acquittal based on their claim that the district
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-30846
- 2 -
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the facts
show that the jury reasonably could have concluded that, in light
of the age of the child’s injuries as described by her
physicians, Steven Hiett was present at the time that the child’s
ribs were injured or that he was the cause of the fracture of her
femur. The jury also could have concluded that, because Chloe’s
pain would have led her parents to conclude that she was injured,
Trini Hiett’s failure to seek immediate medical care for her
daughter indicated her complicity in the acts that caused her
daughter’s injuries. The jury similarly could have reasonably
concluded that, because the child’s injuries ranged in age from
less than one week to six weeks, Trini Hiett, who reportedly did
not leave the residence for an extended period of time, was aware
of the child’s injuries and aided and abetted the crime by
concealing Chloe’s injuries or that Trini Hiett was exclusively
responsible for those injuries. In addition, the jury reasonably
could have concluded that Steven Hiett, by failing to seek
medical attention for his daughter, aided and abetted the assault
committed by his wife. See United States v. Reveles, 190 F.3d
678, 686 (5th Cir. 1999; United States v. Perrien, 274 F.3d 936,
939 (5th Cir. 2001). Thus, a reasonable trier of fact could have
found that the evidence established the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Hietts next argue that the district court abused its
discretion by instructing the jury as to aiding and abetting.
No. 04-30846
- 3 -
This claim, too, is unavailing. This court’s precedent clearly
allowed the district court to give the jury such an instruction.
See United States v. Daniels, 281 F.3d 168, 183 (5th Cir. 2002);
United States v. Laury, 985 F.2d 1293, 1300 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993);
United States v. Bullock, 451 F.2d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 1971).
Moreover, as previously indicated, the evidence was sufficient
for the jury to find that Steven and Trini Hiett aided and
abetted one another in the assaults on their daughter.
Finally, the Hietts contend that the district court erred by
denying their motions for a judgment of acquittal based on the
claim that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Because the child’s injuries, as described by her parents,
occurred within the residence on the Army base at Fort Polk,
Louisiana and that location is within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States, the evidence was sufficient
for a jury to conclude that the charges properly were brought in
the jurisdiction of the United States. See United States v.
Bell, 993 F.2d 427, 429 (5th cir. 1993); see also 18 U.S.C. § 7.
Because Steven Hiett raises a similar argument for the first time
in his reply brief, the argument is waived. Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, it is ordered that the defendants’ convictions
are AFFIRMED.