United States v. Peltier

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1978 · Evidence

585 F.2d 314 (8th Cir. 1978)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceFed. R. Evid. 404(b)Fed. R. Evid. 403flight evidenceother crimes evidenceweapons evidenceharmless errorplain error

Facts

After FBI agents Coler and Williams entered the Jumping Bull Compound on the Pine Ridge Reservation while pursuing suspects, a shootout began and the agents were later killed at point-blank range with a high-velocity, small-caliber weapon. The government's case against Peltier was primarily circumstantial and included evidence that he was in the van the agents followed, was seen near the agents' cars holding an AR-15, made incriminating statements, fled after the shootings, and later possessed Agent Coler's revolver. Ballistics evidence linked a .223 casing found in Coler's trunk and other ammunition evidence to an AR-15 the government contended Peltier used. At trial, the government also introduced evidence concerning Peltier's Wisconsin attempted-murder charge, his flight and armed encounter in Oregon, and weapons recovered in Kansas, Rosebud, and Canada.

Issue

Whether the district court committed reversible error by admitting other-crimes, flight, and weapons evidence; by limiting Peltier's frame-up defense and refusing requested instructions; by refusing to reread testimony to the jury; and whether extradition or collateral estoppel barred the prosecution. More specifically, the principal evidence issue was whether the challenged evidence was admissible under Rules 404(b) and 403 or otherwise harmless.

Rule

Other-crimes evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) only for a proper noncharacter purpose, such as motive, and only when the issue is raised at trial; even then, it may be excluded under Rule 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Flight evidence is probative of guilt when the circumstances support the chain of inferences from behavior to flight, from flight to consciousness of guilt, from consciousness of guilt to consciousness of guilt of the charged crime, and from that consciousness to actual guilt. A defendant's right to present a defense and to compulsory process does not override ordinary evidentiary limits; minimally relevant, cumulative, confusing, or unfairly prejudicial evidence may be excluded under Rule 403.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal murder trial in New Mexico, the government alleges that Noah Mercer shot two marshals who approached his cabin. Before trial, the parties stipulate that Mercer knew an outstanding felony assault warrant from Ohio existed and that he knew arrest would return him there for prosecution.

If identity is hotly disputed, is the warrant evidence most likely admissible?

Explanation. The majority approved admission of an outstanding attempted-murder charge to show motive where identity was the key issue and the evidence explained why the defendant might react violently to law-enforcement pursuit. Rule 404(b) permits other-acts evidence for a proper noncharacter purpose such as motive, and Rule 403 still applies. The evidence is not admissible to prove propensity.