## Facts

- Harvey M. Renville, an Indian and tribal police officer, lived with his family on the Sisseton Indian Reservation in South Dakota.
- He was federally charged with two counts of sexually abusing his eleven-year-old stepdaughter by acts including anal intercourse and cunnilingus, prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 and 1152 by assimilating S.D. Codified Laws § 22-22-1(5).
- The child made out-of-court statements identifying Renville as the abuser to (1) a deputy sheriff during an interview about possible removal from the home and (2) a physician during a sexual-abuse examination while in foster care.
- At trial, the child recanted and denied identifying Renville to anyone other than the deputy sheriff.
- Over objection, the district court admitted the physician’s testimony recounting the child’s identification of Renville under Fed. R. Evid. 803(4) and admitted the deputy sheriff’s testimony recounting the child’s identification under Fed. R. Evid. 803(24).
- A jury convicted Renville on both counts, and the district court imposed two concurrent fifteen-year prison terms.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Assimilative Crimes Act because federal law (including 18 U.S.C. § 1153) already penalized the charged conduct.
2. Whether the child’s identification of Renville to a physician during a sexual-abuse examination was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(4) as reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment.
3. Whether the child’s identification of Renville to a deputy sheriff was admissible under the residual hearsay exception, Fed. R. Evid. 803(24), and if not, whether any error was harmless.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court held the prosecution could proceed under the Assimilative Crimes Act because the assimilated state provision addressed the specific sexual acts charged in a manner not precluded by an applicable federal statute.
- The court held the physician’s testimony about the child’s identification of a household member as the abuser was admissible under Rule 803(4).
- The court held admitting the deputy sheriff’s testimony under Rule 803(24) was error, but the error was harmless because the identification was properly before the jury through other admitted evidence and the deputy’s testimony was largely cumulative.

## Legal Principles

- The Assimilative Crimes Act supplies federal jurisdiction to apply state criminal law on federal enclaves when there is no applicable federal statute that covers the specific conduct in a way that precludes assimilation.
- Under Fed. R. Evid. 803(4), a child victim’s identification of the abuser may be “reasonably pertinent” to diagnosis or treatment when the abuser is a member of the victim’s household, because treatment can require addressing ongoing risk, removal decisions, and psychological harm.
- Statements to law-enforcement personnel are not automatically admissible under the residual hearsay exception; the proponent must show equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness and compliance with the rule’s necessity and justice requirements.
- Erroneous admission of hearsay may be harmless where other properly admitted evidence establishes the same point and the challenged testimony is cumulative.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld federal jurisdiction to prosecute the charged sexual abuse by assimilating South Dakota law and ruled that a child’s identification of a household abuser to a physician during a sexual-abuse examination is admissible under Rule 803(4), while finding the deputy sheriff’s residual-hearsay admission improper but nonprejudicial.


United States v. Renville, 779 F.2d 430 (8th Cir. 1985)