## Facts

- A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agent investigated a grizzly bear killing near Big Sky, Montana, finding a campsite with a “meat pole,” moose blood and hair, and a dead grizzly about 170 yards away that had been shot multiple times.
- The agent recovered a cartridge casing near the meat pole and bullets near the bear.
- Two bowhunters reported meeting an Oregon man skinning a freshly killed moose at the campsite who asked what would happen to someone who shot a grizzly; he did not mention a defensive encounter.
- Using the bowhunters’ information and hunting license records, agents identified Paul N. Clavette as the person at the campsite.
- Agents executed a search warrant at Clavette’s home; after Miranda warnings, Clavette admitted killing the grizzly and claimed self-defense.
- At a bench trial, the government presented forensic evidence that bullet-entry wounds were located on the rear portion of the bear’s body, conflicting with a head-on charge narrative.
- The district court found Clavette guilty of unlawfully taking (killing) a grizzly bear and imposed three years’ probation, a $2,000 fine, and $6,250 restitution.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment required a jury trial for an Endangered Species Act misdemeanor with a maximum of six months’ imprisonment when the government limited the fine it would seek to $10,000 or less.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to reject Clavette’s self-defense claim and find an unlawful taking beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- The court held Clavette had no constitutional right to a jury trial because, as prosecuted with the government’s fine limitation and a six-month maximum imprisonment term, the offense was a petty offense.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and the rejection of self-defense, relying on physical evidence and credibility/inconsistency findings.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment jury-trial right generally does not attach to “petty offenses,” with seriousness assessed primarily by the maximum authorized penalties, especially the maximum term of imprisonment.
- When the maximum imprisonment is six months and the fine exposure is kept within the petty-offense range by the government’s announced limitation, a bench trial may proceed without a jury.
- On sufficiency review, the question is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; credibility determinations and reasonable inferences are for the factfinder.
- In evaluating self-defense claims, physical and circumstantial evidence, along with inconsistencies in the defendant’s accounts, may support a finding that a killing was not justified.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held the ESA misdemeanor, prosecuted with a capped fine and a six-month maximum imprisonment term, was a petty offense not requiring a jury trial and affirmed the conviction because the record permitted the factfinder to reject self-defense and find an unlawful taking beyond a reasonable doubt.


United States v. Clavette, 135 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 1998)