United States v. Hughes, No. 14-2217 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseHughes guides hunting parties, charging $1,600 to $2,600 per person for accommodations, meals, hunting stands, field dressing, and carcass-cleaning facilities. To hunt buck in Iowa, a hunter must have a “tag.” Non-residents must enter a lottery. Hughes gave his non-resident clients tags belonging to others. After they killed a buck, Hughes falsely reported to the Iowa DNR that the tag owner had killed the buck. The bucks were transported out of state. Hughes was indicted under the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. 3371, which prohibits selling in interstate commerce any wildlife taken in violation of state law. The value of the wildlife determines whether the offense is a felony or a misdemeanor. The court instructed the jury: you may, but are not required to, consider, the price the wildlife would bring if sold on the open market between a willing buyer and seller; the price a hunter would pay for the opportunity to participate in a hunt for the wildlife; or Iowa’s valuation of the wildlife in state prosecutions where such wildlife is unlawfully taken. The jury found that the market value of the wildlife exceeded $350. The district court sentenced Hughes to three years’ probation, $7,000 in fines, and $1,802.50 in restitution. The Eighth Circuit reversed; the jury was not properly instructed as to the meaning of “market value.”
Court Description: Schiltz, Author, with Bye and Smith, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal case. In this Lacey Act prosecution, the jury found the market value of the wildlife taken in hunts led by defendant exceeded the felony threshold of $350 based solely on the the price hunters paid for the opportunity to participate in the hunt or the value of the wildlife as set out in Iowa state laws and did not find the value exceeded $350 based on the price the wildlife would fetch on the open market; the instruction which permitted the jury to find a felony violation of the Act solely on the basis that the hunters paid more than $350 for guide services was erroneous; while the evidence of the price of the guide services is relevant to the market value of the wildlife, it is not the same as the market value or, for that matter, the best indication of the value of the game; while the statutory values for the wildlife set in Iowa Code Sec. 481A.130 can be considered in determining the market value, it remains in the province of the jury to determine what weight, if any should be given to such statutory valuations in making their determination of market value; since a jury properly instructed on market value could have acquitted defendant on this record, the error was not harmless and the convictions and sentences must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. Judge Bye, dissenting.
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.