Antoine

MEMORANDUM **

Whether application of a federal law violates RFRA is a question of statutory construction for the court, not a question of fact for the jury. United States v. Hugs, 109 F.3d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir.1997). Antoine’s proposed “religious freedom defense” instruction was therefore erroneous. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of Antoine’s religious purpose. Once Antoine’s RFRA challenge was rejected, his religious purpose became irrelevant. Id.; Fed.R.Evid. 402.

Any error in excluding evidence that Antoine’s transactions were not sales was harmless. BGEPA prohibits both the sale and the possession of eagle parts, and *180 a jury finding that Antoine sold eagle parts would necessarily imply, on the evidence presented, that he also possessed those parts. Antoine did not request a separate finding on possession, nor did he seriously contest it. Whether or not the exchanges were sales was therefore immaterial to whether Antoine violated BGEPA.

Any abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of eagle carcasses that Antoine stored in Canada was harmless. Antoine’s defenses were that he had a religious purpose and that his transactions were…