## Facts

- Russell F. Eagle Bear III, an Indian defendant, was prosecuted in federal court for offenses committed in Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1153.
- A jury convicted Eagle Bear of (1) burglary (incorporating South Dakota burglary elements), (2) assault with a dangerous weapon against Arnetta “Rosie” Packard, and (3) assault by striking, beating, or wounding as a lesser-included offense involving Azure Morrison.
- The jury acquitted Eagle Bear on a separate count charging assault with a dangerous weapon against his girlfriend, Sanya Mendez.
- The burglary charge arose from an incident at LeRoy Morrison Jr.’s residence on the Rosebud Reservation, where multiple residents testified Eagle Bear and his brother entered without permission; Eagle Bear’s brother testified someone let them in.
- The Packard assault charge arose after Packard previously told an FBI agent Eagle Bear assaulted her with a dangerous weapon; at trial, Packard recanted and denied any assault, despite injury evidence and photographs presented by the government.
- Over objection, the district court admitted an officer’s testimony about prior incidents involving Eagle Bear and Mendez.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the “unlawful entering or remaining” element of South Dakota burglary (as incorporated through 18 U.S.C. § 1153).
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support assault with a dangerous weapon against Packard where the victim recanted at trial.
3. Whether admitting testimony about prior incidents between Eagle Bear and Mendez was an abuse of discretion under Rules 401, 403, and 404(b).

## Decision

- The court affirmed all convictions.
- The court held the burglary evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find unlawful entry or unlawful remaining based on resident testimony, regardless of an unlocked door or lack of forced-entry evidence.
- The court held the Packard assault evidence was sufficient because the jury could credit Packard’s earlier statement and corroborating physical evidence over her trial recantation.
- The court held the challenged testimony about prior incidents with Mendez was properly admitted for permissible purposes and was not unfairly prejudicial; limiting instructions supported admission, and the acquittal on the related count further undercut prejudice claims.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, appellate courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and uphold a conviction if any rational juror could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt; credibility conflicts are for the jury.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1153, burglary in Indian country incorporates the applicable state-law elements; “unlawful entering or remaining” may be proved by occupant testimony of lack of permission and does not require physical evidence of forced entry.
- A victim’s trial recantation does not make evidence insufficient where prior inconsistent statements admitted for their truth and corroborated by physical or circumstantial evidence support the verdict.
- Evidence of prior acts may be admitted under Rule 404(b) for non-propensity purposes such as context and absence of mistake or accident, subject to Rule 403 balancing and limiting instructions.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Eagle Bear’s burglary and assault convictions, holding that the jury could credit occupants’ testimony to find unlawful entry or remaining, could rely on a victim’s prior incriminating statement plus corroborating injuries despite a trial recantation, and could consider limited prior-incident testimony admitted for permissible evidentiary purposes.


United States v. Eagle Bear, 507 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2007)