United States of America v. Alphonse Bird

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALPHONSE BIRD,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-30112
D.C. No. 4:19-cr-00014-BMM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 7, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: BOGGS,*** BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
A jury convicted Alphonse Bird of one count of sexual abuse and one count
of aggravated sexual abuse on the Blackfeet reservation, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, Circuit Judge for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAY 12 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
§§ 2241(a) and 2242(2)(b). On appeal, Bird argues that there was insufficient
evidence for his convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.
In our review, we must view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the
prosecution” and we affirm if “any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Nevils,
598 F.3d 1158, 1163–64 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). We also must assume the jury determined the credibility of
witnesses and resolved evidentiary conflicts in a way that supports the verdict.
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir. 1989).
Here, a rational juror could have found Bird guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
on each count. At trial, the prosecution presented DNA evidence and testimony from
both victims, an eyewitness to one incident, and the arresting officer, among others.
Although Bird—who admitted meeting the victims—testified that the encounters
were not sexual, we need not, and indeed cannot, accept his conflicting version of
the facts. See Gillock, 886 F.2d at 222.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --