United States v. Oscar Hudspeth, Sr.

── United States v. Oscar Hudspeth, Sr. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-1434 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Oscar Hudspeth, Sr. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western ____________ Submitted: October 24, 2025 Filed: April 24, 2026 ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Oscar Hudspeth, a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, of two sex abuse crimes in Indian country for sexually touching his young stepdaughter D.J. on multiple occasions -- aggravated sexual abuse of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(c), and 2246(2)(D), and abusive sexual contact of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2244(a)(5), and 2246(3). The district court1 sentenced Hudspeth to the mandatory minimum sentence of 360 months imprisonment. Victim D.J. testified at trial that Hudspeth touched her sexually on at least two occasions when she was five to seven years old. The credibility of this testimony was a major issue in the three-day trial and in the closing arguments of counsel. However, the government’s trial evidence also included admissions Hudspeth made during an FBI interview, conducted soon after D.J. told a school administrator that Hudspeth had “done bad things to me,” that he “probably maybe” touched D.J.’s vagina while she was living with her stepfather in his home from ages four to seven. In pretrial and trial rulings, the district court ruled that testimony by the interviewing agent and a redacted version of the interview transcript would be admitted but barred both parties from telling the jury Hudspeth failed a polygraph test just before this interview. Hudspeth appeals, arguing this evidentiary exclusion violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense because it prevented him from arguing to the jury that he made the incriminating statements only to “explain away” adverse polygraph test results. The government argues that Hudspeth is not entitled to review of this issue and that, even if preserved, the argument is without merit. We will bypass a complex invited error contention. Reviewing the complete-defense argument on the merits, we conclude there was no constitutional violation or abuse of discretion and affirm Hudspeth’s conviction. I. Background and Procedural History When D.J. was seven, she moved out of Hudspeth’s home because he and her mother were separating. When she was eleven, she told a school administrator 1 The Honorable Camela C. Theeler, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -2- Hudspeth had “done bad things to me.” The administrator reported this to a school social worker. D.J. also reported the abuse to her mother and in a forensic interview. After Hudspeth learned that D.J. had made allegations against him, he agreed to a voluntary law enforcement interview and polygraph test at a social services building. FBI Special Agent Timothy Wittman administered the polygraph test and then told Hudspeth it was “absolutely clear you did have some type of sexual contact” with D.J. Hudspeth initially denied sexual contact -- “I swear to God I didn’t.” But as the interview continued, he made increasingly