## Facts

- Richard Nelson Corrow operated an artifact-related business and had experience with Navajo culture and religious ceremonies.
- Ray Winnie, a Navajo religious singer, used and possessed Yei B’Chei ceremonial items used in Navajo ceremonies.
- After Winnie’s death, Corrow visited Winnie’s widow and learned of a group of 22 Yei B’Chei ceremonial masks and related items.
- Corrow paid $10,000 to acquire the masks and other items, using a receipt acknowledged by the widow via thumbprint after translation into Navajo.
- Corrow arranged to sell the masks to a purported private collector who was an undercover agent for $70,000, including a commission to intermediaries.
- Corrow was arrested at an airport while in possession of the masks and protected bird feathers (including golden eagle, great horned owl, and buteonine hawk).
- The government charged Corrow with (1) trafficking in Native American cultural items under 18 U.S.C. § 1170(b), incorporating NAGPRA’s definition of “cultural patrimony,” and (2) possessing/selling protected bird parts under the MBTA.
- At trial, experts disputed whether the masks were inalienable, communally owned objects central to Navajo culture, but agreed they were sacred and not properly sold to non-Navajos for later resale.

## Issues

1. Whether NAGPRA’s definition of “cultural patrimony” is unconstitutionally vague as applied, for lack of fair notice and risk of arbitrary enforcement.
2. Whether a scienter requirement must be implied into MBTA § 703 so conviction requires proof the defendant knew the feathers were from protected species.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings that the masks were cultural patrimony and that Corrow committed the charged offenses.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions on both counts.
- It held NAGPRA’s “cultural patrimony” definition was not void for vagueness as applied to Corrow’s conduct.
- It held MBTA § 703 does not require proof that the defendant knew the species identity or protected status of the feathers.
- It concluded the evidence permitted a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the masks were inalienable cultural patrimony and that Corrow possessed protected feathers within the MBTA’s prohibitions.

## Legal Principles

- A vagueness challenge is assessed as applied to the defendant’s conduct; due process requires reasonable notice of what is prohibited and minimal standards to limit arbitrary enforcement, not absolute precision.
- Congress may define federal prohibitions by reference to external standards, including tribal customs regarding communal ownership and inalienability, without rendering the statute unconstitutional.
- Expert disagreement about application of a statutory standard does not by itself make the standard unconstitutionally vague where the prohibited conduct is reasonably knowable in context.
- MBTA § 703 may be enforced as a strict-liability provision for possession of protected birds or their parts; the government need not prove the defendant’s knowledge of species identity or legal status.
- On appellate review of sufficiency, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government, and the conviction stands if any rational juror could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld Corrow’s convictions, ruling that NAGPRA’s “cultural patrimony” definition provided adequate notice when applied to trafficking in sacred, communally significant Navajo ceremonial masks, and that MBTA liability for possessing protected feathers did not require proof of species-specific knowledge.


United States v. Corrow, 119 F.3d 796 (10th Cir. 1997)