United States v. Drapeau, No. 14-3890 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction of one count of assault and two counts of domestic assault by a habitual offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 117. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony of defendant's then girlfriend about the facts underlying his three prior tribal-court convictions for domestic abuse because the testimony was relevant to prove that the convictions had occurred and that she was a spouse or intimate partner; regardless of whether the testimony was relevant to prove that defendant's prior crimes constituted "any assault" under section 117, it was admissible for other purposes; and any prejudicial effect that the testimony might have had on the jury was mitigated by the district court's curative instruction. The court also concluded that, because the right of counsel does not apply in tribal-court proceedings, the use of defendant's prior tribal-court convictions as predicate offenses in a section 117(a) prosecution does not violate the Constitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Loken and Bye, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. In prosecution for assault and domestic assault by a habitual offender, the district court did not err in admitting testimony regarding the facts underlying defendant's three prior tribal-court convictions for domestic abuse as the evidence was relevant to show the assaults had occurred and that the testifying victim was a spouse or intimate partner, both of which are elements of the offense under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 117; the court's giving of limiting instruction mitigated any prejudicial effect of the testimony; the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to tribal-court proceedings and the use of validly obtained tribal court convictions as predicate offenses under Section 117 does not violate the Constitution even if defendant did not have counsel at the proceedings.
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.