## Facts

- Kerry Neil Enjady, an enrolled member of the Mescalero Apache Indian Tribe, was accused of raping “A,” also a tribal member, on the Mescalero Apache Reservation.
- A, Enjady, and others drank at A’s house; A testified she fell asleep or passed out and later awoke to Enjady raping her.
- A reported the assault and underwent a sexual-assault examination.
- Investigator Mark Chino interviewed Enjady after his arrest on unrelated charges; Enjady initially denied returning to A’s residence or having physical contact with her.
- After DNA evidence matched Enjady, he admitted having sex with A but claimed it was consensual.
- During the interview, Enjady provided a written statement asserting he “wouldn't ever do something like this to anyone.”
- The government sought to admit testimony from “B,” who alleged Enjady raped her about two years earlier, as evidence of other sexual assault under Federal Rule of Evidence 413.
- The district court admitted B’s testimony under Rules 413 and 403 after considering its probative value and potential for unfair prejudice.
- At trial, the court also permitted cross-examination of Enjady regarding prior instances of violent contact that did not result in convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 413 applied to this prosecution given the rule’s effective-date limits.
2. Whether Rule 413 is facially unconstitutional because it permits propensity evidence in sexual-assault cases.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Rule 403 by admitting B’s prior-alleged-rape testimony.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing cross-examination about uncharged violent acts for impeachment.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed Enjady’s conviction for aggravated sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(a)(1), and 2245(2)(A).
- The court held Rule 413 was applicable on the procedural facts presented and any timing error was not reversible.
- The court rejected a facial constitutional challenge and held Rule 413 does not violate due process when trial courts apply Rule 403.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting B’s testimony after Rule 403 balancing.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting cross-examination about prior violent conduct to impeach the image created by Enjady’s testimony and statement.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 413 permits admission of evidence that a defendant committed other sexual assaults in a sexual-assault prosecution, including for propensity, if relevant.
- Rule 413 does not displace Rule 403; trial courts must exclude other-sexual-assault evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or other Rule 403 dangers.
- A facial due process challenge to Rule 413 fails where the evidentiary regime preserves meaningful Rule 403 screening to protect trial fairness.
- When a defendant testifies, impeachment may include cross-examination that contradicts or qualifies impressions created by the defendant’s own testimony and statements, subject to the trial court’s evidentiary discretion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Rule 413 is constitutional and applicable and that the district court acted within its discretion in admitting prior sexual-assault evidence after Rule 403 balancing and in allowing impeachment through cross-examination about uncharged violent conduct.


United States v. Enjady, 134 F.3d 1427 (10th Cir. 1998)