## Facts

- Oscar Saenz was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm in Indian country under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(a)(3).
- Saenz asserted self-defense and sought to introduce evidence of the victim’s prior violent and criminal conduct known to Saenz, including claims that the victim bragged about fighting, carried brass knuckles and a pipe for an assault, and tried to involve Saenz in illegal acts earlier that day.
- The district court granted a government motion in limine, excluding most of the proffered evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
- At trial, Saenz testified that after the victim attempted to enter Saenz’s house and challenged him, Saenz struck the victim because he feared being hurt, given his physical condition.
- After the defense rested, the district court refused to instruct the jury on self-defense, concluding no rational jury could find self-defense based on the admitted evidence.
- The jury convicted Saenz, and he appealed the evidentiary rulings and denial of the self-defense instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by excluding evidence of the victim’s prior violent and criminal acts known to Saenz and offered to show Saenz’s state of mind and the reasonableness of his fear, on the theory that it was inadmissible other-acts evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
2. Whether the district court erred by denying a self-defense jury instruction on the ground that no rational jury could find self-defense on the evidence presented.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that, under intervening circuit authority, the excluded evidence was admissible to show Saenz’s state of mind and the reasonableness of his fear, not to prove the victim’s propensity.
- The court held the denial of a self-defense instruction was erroneous because the excluded evidence would have supplied a sufficient evidentiary foundation for the instruction.
- The court concluded the combined errors were not harmless because they went to Saenz’s principal defense.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of a victim’s prior violent or criminal acts, when offered to show the defendant’s state of mind and the reasonableness of perceived danger, is not barred by Rule 404(b) as propensity evidence if it is not offered to prove the victim acted in conformity with character.
- Such evidence remains subject to relevance limits and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 balancing, but exclusion requires a sound justification where the evidence bears directly on the self-defense theory.
- A defendant is entitled to a theory-of-defense instruction, including self-defense, when there is some evidentiary foundation from which a rational jury could find for the defendant, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defense.
- Excluding defense evidence and then denying a self-defense instruction due to an insufficient record can constitute reversible error when the exclusion caused the deficiency.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit ordered a new trial because the jury was prevented from hearing evidence central to the reasonableness of Saenz’s claimed fear and was not instructed on self-defense, removing a supported defense theory from the jury’s consideration.


United States v. Saenz, 179 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 1999)