Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 14, 2025 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 23-7058 (D.C. No. 6:21-CR-00324-EFM-1) STEWART WAYNE COFFMAN, (E.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________
Before PHILLIPS, CARSON, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
On October 7, 2017, firefighters in Idabel, Oklahoma responded to a
call about a fire at Stewart Wayne Coffman’s dwelling. After battling the
blaze in Coffman’s trailer, firefighter Roger Williams checked Coffman’s
backyard for fire extension. Instead of embers, he found the body of Joseph
Freeman Battiest, Jr.
Coffman was tried before a jury and convicted on June 16, 2022, of
(1) second-degree murder in Indian Country, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 2
§§ 1111(a), 1151, and 1152, and (2) assault with a deadly weapon in Indian
Country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3), 1151, and 1152. Coffman was
sentenced to 300 months on Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment and 120
months on Count 2 of the Superseding Indictment, to be served
concurrently. Judgment was entered on August 17, 2023. Coffman timely
appealed, arguing that there was not sufficient evidence to support his
conviction for second-degree murder. Exercising jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I
On the evening of October 5, 2017, Tabitha Jones, Anthony Quint
Jones, Shawn Mooney, and Battiest were gathered at Coffman’s trailer in
Idabel, Oklahoma. Mooney, Battiest, and Coffman had been consuming
alcohol throughout the day and into the evening. At one point in the
evening, while Coffman was inside his trailer, Mooney and Battiest had a
physical altercation on the front porch. Mooney fell and hit his head on a
brick, which reopened a prior head wound. Battiest also sustained injuries
and was bleeding from his mouth or lip. An ambulance was summoned to
take Mooney to the hospital.
Following the altercation and Mooney’s departure, Coffman appeared
outside on the porch and stated to Battiest, “I told you to leave.” R. III at
135. Tabitha Jones testified that she saw Coffman take a metal pipe out of
2 Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 3
the trailer and asked Battiest to leave multiple times. Tabitha Jones
testified that Coffman stated aloud, “[i]f you don’t want to see this, you
better leave.” Id. at 80. At that point, the Joneses opted to leave the
property. As Anthony Jones was leaving, he picked up Battiest’s mobile
phone and Coffman stated, “[y]ou can have that.” Id. at 138. Anthony Jones
testified that he told Coffman that he would return the mobile phone to
Battiest.
Anthony Jones further testified that as they were leaving, he saw
Coffman pick up a metal pipe that had been located under the porch, and
saw Coffman swing the pipe, but he did not see him make contact with
Battiest. While leaving Coffman’s property, Anthony Jones heard a “thud,”
“like the pipe hitting a body or whatever[.]” Id. at 137.
Tabitha Jones testified that she heard sounds of impact, like “clinks,”
approximately six times. Id. at 65–66, 80–81. As she was walking away,
Tabitha Jones turned back and saw Coffman strike Battiest with the pipe;
however, she could not specify what area of Battiest’s body Coffman was
striking. While they differed in their testimony regarding whence Coffman
retrieved the pipe (i.e., from inside the trailer versus under the porch), the
Joneses both testified that Coffman had a metal pipe in his hands when
they left Coffman’s property, that they saw Coffman either raise the metal
pipe or strike Battiest, and that they heard sounds of impact.
3 Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 4
Approximately three to four hours later, the Joneses returned to Coffman’s
property to return the mobile phone. Anthony Jones testified that when he
inquired about Battiest, Coffman stated, “Joe walked off.” Id. at 139.
Joe Norris – a neighbor living in a camper approximately ten feet
behind Coffman’s trailer – testified that on that evening, Coffman came to
his door and asked if he or his spouse, Tamina Norris, had a flashlight that
he could borrow. Joe Norris testified that Tamina Norris gave a flashlight
to Coffman, Coffman then walked back around to the front of his trailer,
and then Joe Norris heard some “thumping” noise. Id. at 167–68. Joe Norris
described the noise as a “thumping sound, it was a hollow -- a hollow thump
coming from the PVC.” Id. Joe Norris testified that he later looked out his
window and saw Coffman outside, standing with a flashlight shining on the
ground. Specifically, Joe Norris testified:
Q. When was that in relation to that thumping that you heard?
A. The thump I heard, and then about 20 -- 20 minutes later, I believe, it was him out here with a flashlight (indicating).
Q. So you heard the thump first?
A. Yes.
Q. Specifically with the thump, did you hear anything else?
A. I heard -- I heard someone yelling “Stop.”
Q. How many times did you hear that?
4 Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 5
A. Three times.
Q. Did you hear any other noises?
A. No. Just gurgling.
Q. When was that in relation to the “Stop”?
A. Right after the word “Stop” come out, I heard the gurgling. After the third time, it quit.
Q. When was that in relation to the thumping?
A. The same time.
Q. Were you able to determine whose voice it was saying “Stop”?
A. Not until later.
Q. Did you take sometime to think about it?
A. I thought about it, and I didn’t -- I didn’t know.
Id. at 169.
The following day, Battiest failed to report for work at the Nutrition
Center, where Battiest helped deliver meals to elderly and disabled
individuals. Brady Fuller, a former colleague, testified that she called
Battiest when he failed to come to work or drive his route; however, she
did not get a response each time she called. Moreover, Battiest did not call
in sick that day. Id. Fuller testified that Battiest was a reliable employee
who did not usually take leave.
5 Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 6
Two days later, at approximately 10:00 a.m. on October 7, 2017, a
fire broke out in Coffman’s trailer and the Norrises called 911. Williams, a
firefighter in Idabel, responded to the call and located Battiest’s body
behind Coffman’s trailer. Williams testified that:
I went around. And as I’m looking for fire I looked down and saw the PVC, and my mind went to plumber, and I was wondering why there was excrement in my mind on the outside of the PVC. It didn’t make sense, and I just kind of -- and then I followed it, and then I saw a body.
***
Uh-huh, just -- after I went to the front -- or in some order, maybe I went to the front, I don’t -- when I knelt down, I wasn’t quite sure and I got to looking, and I think I went to the front and I got maybe Joe Norris and I said, “Man, tell me that’s not who I think it is,” and he come back and he’s like, “Yeah, it’s who you think it is.”
Id. at 283–84.
While the fire was being put out, Coffman waited with the Joneses.
Tabitha Jones testified:
[H]e walked over to the park, and we went and hung out a little bit and was talking, and I asked him what happened. He said, “Someone set my house on fire.” And then after that he said, “They found a body.” And I said, “Are you serious?” And then he said, “Yeah.” I said, “Whose was it?” And he didn’t tell us. And then after that he looked kinda weird, and I said, “What’d you do, kill somebody and then set the house on fire and say -- you know, try to cover it up?” and he went “Yeah.”
Id. at 72.
6 Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 7
Coffman was then detained and placed in an Oklahoma State Bureau
of Investigation (OSBI) vehicle. While Joe Norris was speaking to an OSBI
agent, Coffman called him and then hung up. When Coffman called Joe
Norris again, the OSBI agent instructed Joe Norris to place the call on
speakerphone. Joe Norris testified that:
The phone, when I picked it up, I heard Stewart Coffman in the car on my phone telling me, “Joe, I fucked up. I really fucked up.” I looked at the OSBI agent, and he looked at me, and he says, “You did hear that, didn’t you?” I said, “Yes, I heard that.” I said, “Did you hear it?” And he said, “Yes.” And then he hung up.
Id. at 177.
Additionally, Leonard Williston, a resident of Idabel, testified that
approximately two or three days before Battiest’s body was found, Coffman
told him that the victim “went to his old lady’s house, told her that he was
cheating on her, and . . . he said he couldn’t believe that he did that and
that he was going to get him.” Id. at 357–58.
Dr. Ross Miller, a forensic pathologist with the State of Oklahoma,
determined that the probable cause of Battiest’s death was “multiple blunt
force injuries” that were primarily identified on the head and bilateral lower
legs. Id. at 433–35. In addition to multiple lacerations to the skin on the
right and left side of the head, there were deep soft tissue hemorrhages,
significant subdural hemorrhage within the skull, and a complex skull
7 Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 8
fracture to the right side of the head. Dr. Miller identified a mark that he
considered to be a toolmark on the right side of the skull, which was “a
linear or elliptical mark.” Id. at 435. During cross-examination, Dr. Miller
conceded that he could not identify what type of object was used to cause
the toolmark; however, he did agree that the edge of a metal pipe would be
consistent. Moreover, Dr. Miller testified that Battiest had extensive
fractures to both tibias. Finally, Dr. Miller noted decomposition to Battiest’s
body as well as maggots and insect activity.
The jury trial was held on June 14-16, 2022. After the Government
rested its case, Coffman moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
29 for a judgment of acquittal. The district court denied the motion, which
Coffman unsuccessfully renewed at the close of all evidence.
The district court instructed the jury on both first-degree and second-
degree murder in Indian Country. On June 16, 2022, the jury found Coffman
(1) not guilty of first-degree murder in Indian Country; (2) guilty of second-
degree murder in Indian Country, and (3) guilty of assault with a dangerous
weapon in Indian Country. Coffman timely appeals.
II
A
Coffman now challenges the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his
conviction for second-degree murder in Indian Country. We begin by setting
8 Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 9
out the standard of review, then proceed to the elements of the offense at
issue in this appeal, and we conclude by analyzing the evidence to
determine whether it is sufficient to sustain Coffman’s conviction.
Of note, Coffman is not appealing his conviction for assault with a
deadly weapon in Indian Country. Rather, Coffman argues on appeal that
the Government did not sufficiently prove that he killed Battiest and that
his verdict is based upon multiple, impermissible inferences. Thus, he
requests that this court vacate his conviction for second-degree murder and
remand his case for resentencing on the assault conviction.
“Sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law reviewed de novo[,]”
wherein we review the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom
in the light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Wilson, 182
F.3d 737, 742 (10th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Wood, 207 F.3d
1222, 1228 (10th Cir. 2000). We examine whether “any rational trier of fact
could have found the defendant guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Wood, 207 F.3d at 1228. “The evidence necessary to support a
verdict need not conclusively exclude every other reasonable hypothesis and
need not negate all possibilities except guilt.” Wilson, 182 F.3d at 742
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Jurors, however, are not
permitted to speculate, and “we will reverse only if no rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
9 Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 10
doubt.” United States v. Xiang, 12 F.4th 1176, 1184 (10th Cir. 2021)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v. Arras, 373
F.3d 1071, 1073 (10th Cir. 2004).
B
To sustain a second-degree murder conviction, the Government must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Coffman unlawfully killed a human
being with malice aforethought. Wood, 207 F.3d at 1228 (citing 18 U.S.C.
§ 1111(a)). Malice aforethought means “either to kill another person
deliberately and intentionally, or to act with callous and wanton disregard
for human life.” United States v. Sago, 74 F.4th 1152, 1156 (10th Cir. 2023)
(citing Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction Committee of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions
2.53 (2023 ed.)). The malice aforethought element is satisfied by (1) having
the intent to kill without premeditation and deliberation; (2) having the
intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) having a depraved heart; or
(4) “commission of a felony when the felony in question is not one of those
specified in the [first-degree] murder paragraph of § 1111(a).” United States
v. Pearson, 159 F.3d 480, 486 (10th Cir. 1998); see also United States v.
Soundingsides, 820 F.2d 1232, 1237 (10th Cir. 1987) (“Malice aforethought
may be established by evidence of conduct which is reckless and wanton,
and a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care, of such a nature
10 Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 11
that a jury is warranted in inferring that the defendant was aware of a
serious risk of death or serious bodily harm.”).
Coffman does not challenge the jury’s findings that Battiest was
assaulted, that Battiest was unlawfully killed, and that the killing was
committed with the requisite malice aforethought. The parties also do not
contest that Battiest was found in Indian Country, that Battiest was
Indian, and that Coffman is non-Indian.1
Rather, Coffman argues that the jury relied upon speculation and
conjecture in concluding that he killed Battiest and, therefore, the evidence
does not support the jury’s guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Specifically, Coffman argues that there was a lack of (1) “eyewitness
testimony about death resulting from the assault”; (2) “forensic evidence
connecting Coffman to Battiest’s death”; and (3) “rational explanation for
where, when, and why Battiest was found dead if Coffman had killed him
nearly two days earlier.” Op. Br. at 31. Coffman’s arguments are unavailing.
1 According to the General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1151, et. seq., the
Indian status of either the victim or defendant is an essential element of the offense charged. See 18 U.S.C. § 1152; United States v. Simpkins, 90 F.4th 1312, 1314, 1317–18 (10th Cir. 2024) (“[18 U.S.C. § 1152] extends the general laws of the United States to Indian [C]ountry, yet it applies only if either the victim or the defendant—but not both—is an Indian.”).
11 Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 12
C
After examining the evidence presented at trial and viewing it in the
light most favorable to the Government, we easily find the evidence
sufficient to support Coffman’s conviction for second-degree murder. A
conviction may be founded on circumstantial evidence; thus, “it is not
required that an appellate court exclude every reasonable hypothesis, but
only that it find that a jury might reasonably have done so.” United States
v. Davila, 693 F.2d 1006, 1007 (10th Cir. 1982).
Williston’s testimony established that Coffman was angry at Battiest
for informing his girlfriend that Coffman was cheating on her and that
Coffman said he was “going to get him.” R. III at 358. Hence, from the
outset, there is at least some evidence of motive.
Coffman contends that the Joneses’ testimony does not support his
conviction because they only witnessed him assaulting Battiest; thus, there
is no witness or direct evidence supporting Coffman’s commission of second-
degree murder. An eyewitness, however, is not required for a jury to find a
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Matthews v. Workman, 577
F.3d 1175, 1185 (10th Cir. 2009); see also Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539
U.S. 90, 100 (2003) (“[W]e have never questioned the sufficiency of
circumstantial evidence in support of a criminal conviction, even though
proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.”); Holland v. United States,
12 Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 13
348 U.S. 121, 140 (1954) (“Circumstantial evidence in this respect is
intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence.”).
Most significantly, the Joneses saw Coffman with the pipe in hand
and then heard sounds of the impact of the pipe being used. Tabitha Jones
saw Coffman strike Battiest approximately six times.
Also, Coffman borrowed a flashlight from his neighbors and Joe
Norris saw Coffman go to the front of his property with the flashlight. Joe
Norris then heard thumping sounds, heard someone yell “stop” three times,
and then heard gurgling. Id. at 169. After approximately twenty minutes,
Joe Norris saw Coffman standing at the back of his property with the
flashlight shining on the ground (and in the general area where Battiest’s
body would be discovered on October 7, 2017).
The next day, on October 6, 2017, Battiest did not report to work, even
though his coworker, Fuller, testified he was always reliable and not taking
leave. Moreover, when Battiest’s body was discovered behind Coffman’s
trailer and on Coffman’s property, Coffman called Norris and stated, “Joe,
I fucked up. I really fucked up.” Id. at 177. This call was witnessed by an
OSBI agent. Finally, the forensic examiner established that there was a
toolmark visible on Battiest’s skull, which could be consistent with the edge
of a pipe.
13 Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 14
In totality, this evidence was sufficient for a jury to infer and conclude
that (1) Coffman had a motive to harm Battiest, (2) Coffman acted with
malice aforethought and beat Battiest with a metal pipe on the night of
October 5, 2017, (3) which resulted in Battiest’s death between October 5
and October 6, 2017, (4) that Battiest’s body was left behind Coffman’s
trailer and at the back of Coffman’s property, (5) that Battiest’s body was
discovered on October 7, 2017, and (6) that Coffman made admissions
regarding the killing of Battiest.
The court will not delve too deeply into Coffman’s argument about a
lack of a “rational explanation for where, when, and why Battiest was found
dead if Coffman had killed him nearly two days earlier.” Op. Br. at 31.
Rather, the evidence supporting the conviction is rational enough that we
need not speculate as to all other hypotheses, not argued by Coffman, as to
how these events could have otherwise unfolded. United States v. Summers,
414 F.3d 1287, 1293 (10th Cir. 2005) (“We will not weigh conflicting
evidence or second-guess the fact-finding decisions of the jury.”); see also
United States v. Flechs, 98 F.4th 1235, 1243 (10th Cir. 2024), cert. denied,
No. 24-5131, 2024 WL 4427368 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2024).
14 Appellate Case: 23-7058 Document: 67 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 15
III
Accordingly, we AFFIRM Coffman’s convictions and sentence.
Entered for the Court
Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge