Você está na página 1de 27
 
FILED
United States Court of AppealsTenth Circuit
July 20, 2017
Elisabeth A. ShumakerClerk of Court
PUBLISHUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSTENTH CIRCUIT
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff - Appellee,v.No. 16-7043DAVID BRIAN MAGNAN,Defendant - Appellant. 
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA(D.C. No. 6:13-CR-00069-RAW-1)
 William P. Widell, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender (Julia L. O’Connell,Federal Public Defender, and Chance Cammack, Assistant Federal PublicDefender, with him on the brief), Eastern District of Oklahoma, Muskogee,Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant.Richard A. Friedman, Appellate Section, Criminal Division, United StatesDepartment of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Leslie R. Caldwell and Sung-Hee Suh,Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals, United States Department of Justice,Washington, D.C., and Mark F. Green, United States Attorney, and Linda Epperley,Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Oklahoma, Muskogee,Oklahoma, with him on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee. Before
BRISCOE
,
McKAY
, and
BALDOCK
, Circuit Judges. 
BALDOCK
, Circuit Judge. 
 
The district court sentenced Defendant David Magnan, a Native American, tolife imprisonment times three after a jury convicted him of murdering Lucilla McGirtand two others in Indian Country in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153. Defendant shotMcGirt twice and left her to die, paralyzed from the chest down, as part of anexecution-style slaying during which he shot four individuals. McGirt died, but not before she identified Defendant as her assailant. On three separate occasions rangingfrom approximately two to five hours after the shooting, first a police officer, thenan emergency medic, and finally McGirt’s sister, heard McGirt identify Defendantas the man who shot her. At trial, these three individuals testified to McGirt’srespective statements over Defendant’s hearsay objections. Defendant now appealshis judgment of conviction. He asserts the district court abused its discretion inruling McGirt’s statements constituted excited utterances admissible under Rule803(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. We affirm.
1
I.In the early morning hours of March 2, 2004, after a day of drinking,Defendant Magnan, Aaron Wolf, and Aaron’s uncle, Redmond Wolf, Jr., drove to thehome of Jim Howard in rural Indian Country near Seminole, Oklahoma. Aaron’s .40
1
 Because we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion inadmitting McGirt’s statements as excited utterances under Rule 803(2), we have nooccasion to address whether such statements were also admissible, as the districtcourt held, under other exceptions to the rule against hearsay.2
 
caliber semi-automatic handgun, loaded with hollow point bullets, was in the frontcenter console of Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant, a friend of Aaron and former house guest of Howard now persona non grata, was driving. Shortly after midnight,Aaron had phoned Howard’s residence and, though he later denied it, threatened tokill Howard over an ongoing family dispute regarding Howard’s ownership of thehome. Howard had been married to Aaron’s aunt, Margie Wolf, and inherited the property when she died. Apparently this did not sit well with some members of theWolf family, including Aaron.
2
Howard, Eric Coley, Lucilla McGirt, Karen Wolf, and Karen’s daughter, AmyHarrison, were inside the residence as Defendant’s vehicle approached. Karen wasMargie and Redmond’s sister and Aaron’s aunt. Coley and McGirt, both friends of Howard, were unrelated to the Wolfs. Howard and his guests had been celebratingColey’s birthday and drinking, at least since early evening. Coley and Harrisonheard the vehicle and went outside to meet it. Harrison greeted Redmond, her uncle,and Aaron, her cousin. Meanwhile, Coley informed Defendant that he and hisfriends were not welcome and should leave. The two men engaged in a scuffle. Coley wrestled Defendant to the ground. Defendant pulled a gun and shot Coley inthe abdomen. Coley testified: “As [Defendant] was getting up, I seen him pull
2
 Perhaps defense counsel accurately portrayed the Wolf family when duringclosing arguments he described them as “insular,” “clannish,” “mean,” “violent,” and “drunken.” Rec. vol. II, at 689. The record, by any reading, does not discount such portrayal.3

Recompense a sua curiosidade

Tudo o que você quer ler.
A qualquer hora. Em qualquer lugar. Em qualquer dispositivo.
Sem compromisso. Cancele quando quiser.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505