Simple assault jury instructions
Kandace Sitting Eagle v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Kandace Sitting Eagle asked the Supreme Court to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision upholding the trial judge’s refusal to instruct jurors on simple assault as a lesser offense on two assault counts, and the courts’ focus on the prosecution’s theory rather than the offenses’ elements.
- Who it affects
- Sitting Eagle did not get Supreme Court review of her challenge to the refusal to give jurors the requested simple-assault instructions.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case (denied review), so it did not decide those questions.
The two counts charged assault causing serious bodily injury and assault with a deadly weapon; Sitting Eagle sought simple assault as a lesser option for each.
Question presented
1. Did the courts below err when they focused on the government’s theory of prosecution, rather than the elements of the charged and lesser included offenses in making this determination? 2. Was it error for the court of appeals to affirm the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple assault on Count Two (assault with serious bodily injury) and Count Four (assault with a deadly weapon)?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.