## Facts

- Roman White Calf, age 19, hosted a party at his home on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation where attendees, including minors, drank heavily.
- Thirteen-year-old L.R.F. attended with her aunts, who instructed her to lie about her age.
- L.R.F. initially told White Calf she was 15; later, after kissing began, she told him she was 13, and he responded that age did not matter.
- A friend told White Calf that L.R.F. was younger than she claimed and younger than another girl at the party believed to be about 15.
- L.R.F. fell asleep in a bedroom and awoke to White Calf engaging in vaginal intercourse with her.
- A tribal police officer entered while investigating the loud, alcohol-related party and observed White Calf and L.R.F. naked from the waist down and engaged in intercourse.
- At the scene, L.R.F. told the officer she was 16; White Calf stated he thought she was 17 and claimed there had been no penetration.
- White Calf was federally charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 2243(a) with sexual abuse of a minor and attempted sexual abuse of a minor, convicted after a jury trial, and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by instructing that voluntary intoxication could not be considered when assessing the objective reasonableness of the § 2243(c)(1) mistake-of-age defense, though it could be considered on the specific-intent element of attempt.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting alcohol-related evidence as improper character evidence or unfairly prejudicial under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the jury instructions, viewed as a whole, correctly stated the law and did not mislead the jury.
- The court held the mistake-of-age defense under § 2243(c)(1) turns on objective reasonableness, so voluntary intoxication could not be used to make an unreasonable belief reasonable.
- The court held intoxication evidence could be considered for the attempt count to the extent it related to whether White Calf formed the specific intent to commit the sexual act.
- The court held admission of alcohol-related evidence fell within the trial court’s discretion because it was probative of context and witness credibility and was not unfairly prejudicial.

## Legal Principles

- The § 2243(c)(1) mistake-of-age defense requires that the defendant’s belief the victim was at least 16 be objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
- Voluntary intoxication is not considered when evaluating the objective reasonableness of a claimed mistake of age under § 2243(c)(1).
- Voluntary intoxication may be relevant to whether a defendant formed the specific intent required for an attempt offense.
- Contextual evidence concerning alcohol use and party circumstances may be admitted when it is probative of the events and credibility, and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld White Calf’s convictions, concluding that the jury was properly instructed to assess mistake of age under an objective standard unaffected by voluntary intoxication, while allowing intoxication to bear on specific intent for attempt, and that alcohol-related evidence was permissibly admitted as part of the case context.


United States v. White Calf, 634 F.3d 453 (8th Cir. 2011)