Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • U
  • United States v. White CalfUnited States v. White Calf
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

United States v. White Calf

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
634 F.3d 453 (2011)


Facts

The federal government (plaintiff) prosecuted Roman White Calf (defendant), a 19-year-old, for attempting to commit, and committing, sexual abuse of a minor (sometimes known as "statutory rape"), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a). Under § 2243, the victim had to be under 16 years old and at least four years younger than the defendant. White Calf's defense was that he reasonably mistook his victim to be at least 16. The trial evidence established that White Calf held a party at his house, which was on an Indian reservation, and where he met L.R.F., a 13-year-old female. L.R.F.'s 18-year-old aunt, S.R.F., had told L.R.F. to lie about her age, so initially L.R.F. told White Calf that she was 15. White Calf and L.R.F. started kissing, at which point she told him that she was really only 13. White Calf responded that age didn't matter. S.R.F. intervened to break up the couple, and told White Calf that L.R.F. was younger than she told him, and younger than another 14- or 15-year-old girl who was at the party. Everyone at the party became drunk, and the party grew so noisy that someone called the police. A police officer responded, and on entering a bedroom, he discovered White Calf and L.R.F. apparently engaging in sexual intercourse. L.R.F. told the officer she was 16 and White Calf said he thought she was 17. White Calf also told the officer that he had not yet penetrated L.R.F. when the officer arrived. The judge instructed the jury to disregard White Calf's intoxication when deciding if he reasonably mistook L.R.F.'s age, but to consider his intoxication only insofar as it negated White Calf's intent to attempt sexual assault. The jury convicted White Calf. On appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, White Calf contended that the judge committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury on intoxication.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Riley, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 450,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 450,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers


Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial