United States v. White Buffalo ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •            _____________
    No. 95-3671SD
    _____________
    United States of America,             *
    *
    Appellee,           *
    *
    v.                               *
    *
    William White Buffalo,                *
    *
    Appellant.          *
    _____________                  Appeals from the United States
    District Court for the District
    No. 95-3672SD                  of South Dakota.
    _____________
    United States of America,            *
    *
    Appellee,          *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Ernest White Buffalo,                *
    *
    Appellant.         *
    _____________
    Submitted:   March 12, 1996
    Filed: May 30, 1996
    _____________
    Before FAGG, JOHN R. GIBSON, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    _____________
    FAGG, Circuit Judge.
    A jury convicted William White Buffalo and his brother Ernest White
    Buffalo of aggravated sexual abuse and of aiding and abetting aggravated
    sexual abuse.   See 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (1994).   The White Buffalo brothers
    appeal, and we affirm.
    According to Antoinette Boltz, she met William and Ernest
    White Buffalo at a drinking party, they took her for a ride into the
    country, and then raped her.     Although the victim told a hospital doctor
    she had not engaged in consensual sexual intercourse within seventy-two
    hours of the rape, laboratory test results suggested otherwise.          At trial,
    the   brothers wanted to offer the victim's denial of earlier sexual
    intercourse and then introduce the test results to impeach her credibility.
    The district court decided the evidence about the victim's past sexual
    behavior was inadmissible under Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
    On appeal, the White Buffalo brothers contend the district court
    improperly refused to admit the test results.           William argues the test
    results were admissible to impeach the victim's truthfulness and to show
    her capability to fabricate a story about the rape.       Contrary to William's
    view, these are not recognized exceptions to Rule 412.          United States v.
    Azure, 
    845 F.2d 1503
    , 1506 (8th Cir. 1988).              In the absence of an
    applicable exception, Rule 412 "specifically bars admission of evidence of
    the past sexual behavior of an alleged rape victim."       United States v. Blue
    Horse, 
    856 F.2d 1037
    , 1040 (8th Cir. 1988).        Unlike his brother, Ernest
    argues the district court should have admitted the test results under two
    of the exceptions listed in Rule 412.       Ernest contends the test results
    showed "that a person other than the accused was the source of semen."
    Fed. R. Evid. 412(b)(1)(A).   Ernest cannot rely on this exception, however,
    because the Government did not introduce any evidence about the victim's
    past sexual behavior or the presence of semen in the victim.            See United
    States v. Shaw, 
    824 F.2d 601
    , 604 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 
    484 U.S. 1068
    (1988).    Ernest also contends the district court's refusal to admit
    the test results violated his constitutional right to confront the victim
    and impeach her general credibility with the lie to the doctor.            Fed. R.
    Evid.    412(b)(1)(C).   In   Ernest's   view,   "[a]   jury   cannot   judge   the
    credibility of a witness unless that jury is informed of each and every lie
    the witness told [before]
    -2-
    the trial [about] the case."   We disagree.   Because the victim's statement
    about unrelated consensual sexual intercourse was of little or no probative
    value on the question of whether she falsely accused Ernest of rape, the
    exclusion of the test results did not deprive Ernest of a constitutional
    right.     See United States v. Bartlett, 
    856 F.2d 1071
    , 1088-89 (8th Cir.
    1988).   Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
    when it prohibited impeachment of the victim with her past sexual behavior.
    Fed. R. Evid. 412.
    Finally, William contends the district court improperly denied his
    request for an acceptance of responsibility adjustment.          Instead of
    accepting responsibility for rape, William makes it perfectly clear that
    he has "consistently denied raping [the victim], [because] the sexual
    intercourse was consensual."   The district court correctly denied William's
    request.    See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) (1994); United States v. Yankton, 
    986 F.2d 1225
    , 1230 (8th Cir. 1993).
    We affirm the White Buffalo brothers' convictions and William's
    sentence.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -3-