United States v. Webster, No. 14-1819 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThe indictment alleged that "within the Omaha Indian Reservation in Indian Country, [Webster], an Indian male, did knowingly engage in a sexual act with A.C., a child who had not attained the age of 12 years.” The jurisdictional statute, 18 U.S.C. 1152, provides: Except as otherwise expressly provided … the general laws of the United States … shall extend to the Indian country. This section shall not extend to offenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian, nor to any Indian ... who has been punished by the local law of the tribe. The indictment did not allege A.C. was a non-Indian or that Webster had not faced tribal punishment. At trial, Webster stipulated that he is an Indian and A.C. is a non-Indian. The court excluded references to a tribal complaint filed against Webster, which had been dismissed. Webster was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, 18 U.S.C. 2241(c). The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and upholding the decision not to admit the tribal complaint. Even if the victim’s status is an element of section 1152, the indictment’s failure to allege A.C.’s status did not render it “so defective that by no reasonable construction can it be said to charge the offense.”
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Wollman and Smith, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of a child; any variance between the "on or about" date of the offense shown in the indictment and the evidence was not prejudicial as the indictment fully apprised defendant of the alleged offense; even if the victim's status as an non-Indian was an element of the offense under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1152, the indictment's failure to allege her status did not render it so defective that no reasonable construction can be said to charge the offense and defendant stipulated to it at trial; the absence of tribal punishment is not an element of the offense under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1152; the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding a tribal complaint or by admitting a recording; district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a post-appeal motion concerning production of a document.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.