## Facts

- In July 1979, on the Rosebud Indian Reservation near Mission, South Dakota, John Louis Iron Shell, Jr. had been drinking heavily.
- A nine-year-old girl was grabbed and pulled into roadside bushes; witnesses later observed her clothing in disarray.
- About 45–75 minutes after the incident, a police officer interviewed the child, who described the assault.
- A physician later examined the child; during the exam, the child described being dragged into the bushes and having her clothing removed, which the physician used to guide the scope and focus of the examination.
- No physical evidence of penetration was found, but the prosecution relied on eyewitness, medical, and circumstantial evidence to prove intent.
- A federal jury convicted Iron Shell of assault with intent to commit rape under 18 U.S.C. § 1153, and he received a lengthy prison sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the child’s statements to a police officer were admissible as an excited utterance under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2).
2. Whether the child’s statements to the examining physician were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) as statements for medical diagnosis or treatment.
3. Whether the district court was required to instruct the jury on simple assault as a lesser-included offense.
4. Whether the Major Crimes Act’s jurisdictional scheme violated equal protection as applied to lesser-included offense instructions.
5. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for assault with intent to commit rape.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the child’s statements to the officer under Rule 803(2); the time lapse was not dispositive given the child’s age, the nature of the event, and her condition.
- Even if admission of the officer’s testimony were error, it was cumulative and therefore harmless.
- The child’s statements to the physician were properly admitted under Rule 803(4) because they were obtained during a medical examination and were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
- The district court was not required to give a lesser-included instruction on simple assault because the evidence did not permit a rational jury to convict on the lesser while acquitting on the charged offense.
- The equal-protection challenge to the Major Crimes Act was rejected.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could find assault with intent to commit rape beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 803(2) permits admission of statements relating to a startling event made while the declarant remains under the stress of excitement; there is no fixed time limit, and admissibility depends on the circumstances.
- Appellate review of an excited-utterance ruling is for abuse of discretion, considering factors such as the declarant’s age, the event’s severity, and the declarant’s emotional state.
- Erroneous admission of hearsay does not require reversal if the evidence is cumulative and the error is harmless.
- Rule 803(4) permits admission of statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment, including statements describing the general cause or source of symptoms or injury when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
- A lesser-included offense instruction is required only when the lesser offense is necessarily included in the greater and the evidence would allow a rational jury to convict on the lesser while acquitting on the greater.
- Congress may assign federal jurisdiction over specified crimes in Indian country under the Major Crimes Act without violating equal protection, absent unconstitutional discrimination in the statutory classification.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld the conviction, holding that the child’s statements to police and to a physician were properly admitted under Rules 803(2) and 803(4), that no lesser-included simple-assault instruction was required on this record, that the Major Crimes Act’s jurisdictional structure did not violate equal protection, and that the evidence was sufficient to prove assault with intent to commit rape.


United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77 (8th Cir. 1980)