## Facts

- Ronald Keiser, Jr. attended a late-night, alcohol-fueled gathering in Wolf Point, Montana, within the Fort Peck Indian Reservation.
- After going to the party house to complain about noise, a confrontation occurred; testimony differed about who escalated the situation and what acts occurred inside the house.
- Keiser returned home upset; his girlfriend called Keiser’s brother, Randy Keiser, who came over, calmed him, and then sat in his pickup truck parked between the two houses.
- Victor Romero arrived at the party house, became angry, crossed the street with two companions, and encountered Randy in the truck.
- Romero struck Randy through the open truck window, apparently believing Randy was Ronald Keiser.
- Seeing his brother being beaten, Keiser retrieved a rifle, went outside, and shot Romero, paralyzing him from the waist down.
- A jury convicted Keiser of assault resulting in serious bodily injury under 18 U.S.C. § 113(f); federal jurisdiction rested on 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a).
- At trial, Keiser claimed self-defense and defense of another (defense of Randy).
- Keiser sought to introduce Randy’s testimony about Romero allegedly yelling threats outside the courtroom the day before trial to show Romero’s violent character; the district court excluded the testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s self-defense/defense-of-another jury instruction, considered as a whole, misstated the law or prevented Keiser from presenting his theory of defense.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding testimony about the victim’s alleged out-of-courtroom threatening conduct offered as victim-character evidence supporting self-defense.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The self-defense/defense-of-another instruction, viewed in its entirety, fairly stated the applicable law and allowed the jury to consider Keiser’s defense.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered testimony about the victim’s alleged conduct outside the courtroom.
- Any arguable evidentiary error was harmless because it did not substantially influence the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole; reversal is warranted only when the charge misstates the law or is misleading in a way that prevents presentation of the defense theory.
- In self-defense cases, evidence of a victim’s violent character is generally limited by Federal Rules of Evidence 404 and 405; specific instances of conduct may be restricted and are subject to the trial court’s control.
- Under Rule 403, a trial court may exclude marginally probative, temporally remote, or distracting evidence that risks confusing the issues or misleading the jury.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; nonconstitutional evidentiary error warrants reversal only if it likely affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld Keiser’s assault conviction, concluding that the self-defense/defense-of-another instructions adequately framed the defense and that excluding a temporally remote, specific-act account of the victim’s alleged threatening behavior was within the district court’s discretion and, in any event, nonprejudicial.


United States v. Keiser, 57 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 1995)