Background
Francis Lee Dubray accompanied Nathan Griffin and Brian Taken Alive to Peggy Thompson’s home in McLaughlin, South Dakota, to confront Burdon Lester about an accusation involving Griffin’s daughter. After Taken Alive kicked open the locked door, Griffin and Taken Alive entered and assaulted Lester. Thompson testified that Dubray, who had approached the doorway, kicked her in the face as she tried to protect Lester.
A jury convicted Dubray of first-degree burglary and two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, including under alternative aiding-and-abetting theories, but acquitted him of witness tampering. The district court sentenced him to 70 months in prison. On appeal, Dubray challenged the exclusion of defense evidence, the burglary instructions, the admission of photographs and related testimony, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the denial of a new trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. It held that excluding testimony about prior 911 calls concerning Thompson’s residence did not violate Dubray’s right to present a complete defense. The calls did not establish the substance or truth of reported incidents, and the district court reasonably concluded that the evidence risked confusing the issues and improperly shifting the trial’s focus to Thompson. A separate evidentiary challenge involving a neighbor’s surveillance cameras was unreviewable because Dubray made no offer of proof.
The court also upheld the rejection of Dubray’s proposed instruction distinguishing portions of a structure that were open to the public from portions that were not because no admissible evidence supported that theory. Photographs of the home had an adequate foundation through the agent who took them, and the jury could decide what they depicted. Any error in the agent’s identification of the blood’s source was invited by Dubray’s questioning. Finally, Thompson’s testimony, another witness’s placement of Dubray inside the living room, and the aiding-and-abetting evidence permitted a reasonable jury to convict on all three counts, so the district court properly denied both acquittal and a new trial.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s right to present a complete defense does not require admission of evidence that risks confusing or misleading the jury under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
- A proposed jury instruction may be refused when the evidence does not support the factual theory it describes.
- Witness-credibility disputes and inconsistencies generally belong to the jury and do not defeat a verdict supported by a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary showing required to argue that a residence—or part of it—was “open to the public” for purposes of South Dakota’s burglary statute as incorporated through the Major Crimes Act. Prior police calls or allegations about activity at a home do not, without more, establish public access.
It also reinforces the importance of preserving evidentiary challenges through an offer of proof and avoiding invited error during cross-examination. On sufficiency review, appellate courts will defer to the jury’s credibility determinations and consider alternative aiding-and-abetting theories supported by the record.