United States v. Joseph Newbill

MEMORANDUM

Joseph Newbill challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the district court’s determination that Newbill violated the terms of his supervised release by committing indecent exposure. We affirm.

Like the district court, we decline to consider the hearsay testimony presented at the revocation hearing. However, we conclude that the admissible evidence of Newbill’s statements to investigators and his demeanor during questioning support the district court’s conclusion that he “intentionally ma[de] an[ ] open and obscene exposure of his ... person ... knowing that such conduct [was] likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.” Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.88.010G) (2014). “[V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government,” we conclude that a “rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a violation [of supervised release] by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. Jeremiah, 493 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir.2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Even if the district court had erred in its conclusion that Newbill committed indecent exposure, any error…