## Facts

- A bonfire party occurred on December 4, 1987, on the Navajo Reservation in southeastern Utah.
- Navajo police officer Roy Lee Stanley arrived in a police truck; an altercation followed in which Stanley was overpowered and handcuffed.
- Witnesses reported hearing gunshots and seeing Vinton Bedonie carrying a firearm.
- A second officer, Andy Begay, arrived in another police vehicle; witnesses stated Bedonie pointed a gun at Begay and forced him behind a truck.
- Stanley and Begay, along with their vehicles, were taken to a remote area known as Copper Canyon.
- Gasoline was poured on the police vehicles and they were set on fire.
- On December 5, 1987, passers-by found two burned and smoldering Navajo police vehicles in Copper Canyon; investigators located charred human remains inside.
- A forensic pathologist testified both officers died from smoke inhalation and thermal burns.
- A federal grand jury indicted Vinton Bedonie, Thomas Cly, and two others for two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of using/carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, alleging premeditated murder and murder committed during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of arson, escape, and murder.
- After a jury trial in the District of Utah, Bedonie and Cly were convicted on all counts and sentenced to life terms on the murder counts plus consecutive terms on the firearm counts.

## Issues

1. Whether eyewitnesses who previously made inconsistent or false statements were incompetent to testify under Federal Rule of Evidence 601, requiring exclusion of their testimony.
2. Whether the indictment sufficiently alleged first-degree murder (including felony-murder) and properly invoked federal jurisdiction over murders committed by Indians in Indian country under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a) and 1153.
3. Whether the jury had to be unanimous on the specific statutory theory of first-degree murder (premeditated murder versus felony-murder, and the particular predicate felony) to return a valid guilty verdict.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for first-degree murder and for using/carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences on all counts.
- The court held the challenged eyewitnesses were competent under Rule 601; prior lies or inconsistencies were credibility matters for the jury.
- The court held the indictment adequately set out the statutory offense and invoked federal jurisdiction for murder prosecutions in Indian country.
- The court held jury unanimity was not required as to the particular theory of first-degree murder where the statute defines a single offense that may be committed by alternative methods.
- The court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the murder and firearm counts.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 601 establishes a strong presumption that witnesses are competent; impeachment based on inconsistent statements generally affects credibility and weight, not admissibility.
- An indictment is sufficient if it states the elements of the offense, provides fair notice to prepare a defense, and permits a double-jeopardy bar; tracking statutory language may suffice when it fully states the elements.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a), first-degree murder includes both premeditated murder and felony-murder (including murder committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of specified felonies such as arson and escape); 18 U.S.C. § 1153 provides federal jurisdiction over certain major crimes, including murder, committed by Indians in Indian country.
- When a statute defines a single offense that can be committed by alternative means, a general verdict may stand without juror unanimity on the particular means, so long as jurors unanimously find the defendant committed the offense as defined.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find each element proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Bedonie’s and Cly’s convictions for first-degree murder and related firearm offenses, holding that credibility-based attacks on eyewitnesses did not establish incompetence under Rule 601, the indictment adequately charged statutory first-degree murder and federal jurisdiction in Indian country, unanimity was not required on alternative first-degree murder theories, and the trial evidence supported the verdicts.


United States v. Bedonie, 913 F.2d 782 (10th Cir. 1990)