## Facts

- Robert Ford, a non-Indian, spent the night drinking at Christina Weston’s home in Indian country with Eric Sherman and Michelle Red Earth.
- The next morning, Sherman heard noises from Weston’s bedroom; Ford exited, closed the door, and told Sherman Weston was “having a fit” and he “better go check on her.”
- When Sherman spoke with Weston, she appeared distressed and bruised and immediately accused Ford.
- Weston reported that Ford sexually assaulted her while she was incapacitated and then confined her in her bedroom by blocking the door and taking her phone to prevent her from leaving or calling for help.
- The government charged Ford with (1) sexual abuse of an incapacitated person and (2) kidnapping, under a confinement theory that Ford held Weston to prevent her from reporting the sexual assault.
- The jury acquitted Ford on the sexual-abuse count but convicted him of kidnapping; the district court sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether Ford’s acquittal on the sexual-abuse count legally required acquittal on the kidnapping count where the alleged purpose of kidnapping was preventing a report of sexual assault.
2. Whether supplemental jury instructions stating that a sexual-abuse conviction was unnecessary for a kidnapping conviction, and clarifying kidnapping elements, were erroneous or constituted a constructive amendment.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove kidnapping, including nonconsensual confinement and the purpose of preventing reporting.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the kidnapping conviction.
- The court held the verdicts were not legally incompatible, and any inconsistency did not justify reversal.
- The court upheld the supplemental instructions as accurate and consistent with the indictment and the court’s earlier charge; no constructive amendment occurred.
- The court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient for a rational jury to find kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- Inconsistent jury verdicts across counts generally do not warrant reversal, even when the counts share factual predicates.
- For kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), the government must prove the defendant held the victim for a prohibited purpose; the government need not obtain (or even be able to obtain) a conviction on the separate offense that the defendant allegedly sought to conceal or prevent from being reported.
- A district court may provide supplemental jury instructions to address jury confusion; reversal is unwarranted if the instructions correctly state the law, remain within the indictment’s theory, and do not mislead the jury.
- Sufficiency review requires viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and affirming if any rational juror could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Ford’s kidnapping conviction because the acquittal on sexual abuse did not bar a finding that he confined Weston to prevent reporting, the supplemental instructions properly clarified that point without altering the charge, and the record contained sufficient evidence of nonconsensual confinement and the requisite purpose.


United States v. Ford, 726 F.3d 1028 (8th Cir. 2013)