The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that a Utah court did not err in sentencing a Wyoming man to six years in prison and requiring that he undergo mental health treatment for an assault on a forest ranger in Utah.
Aaron Jereb, of Rock Springs, was sentenced in U.S. District Court in Utah after his June 2016 conviction for assaulting a U.S. Forest Service officer.
Jereb, 35, appealed the conviction, claiming the jury received incorrect instructions while deciding his guilt, and that the judge did not “connect the dots” between his past and present behavior and the need for mental health treatment.
Jereb was arrested after an Oct. 15, 2015, altercation with officer Darren Schiedel. Schiedel found Jereb and his girlfriend parked late at night on the side of the road in Lambs Canyon, in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
Schiedel illuminated Jereb’s Chevrolet Blazer with his spotlight and approached the couple to see what they were doing. He found them doing methamphetamine and heroin, according to the appeals court decision.
After engaging Jereb, Schiedel testified, he decided he “wanted out of there at that point” due to Jereb’s “wild-eyed” and “real direct gaze.” Schiedel decided Jereb was sober enough to drive back to Rock Springs, so he cited the two for drug possession and told them they were free to go.
The Blazer wouldn’t start, so the couple asked Schiedel for a jump. He obliged.
After the jump, Jereb and Schiedel started talking. Jereb twice told Schiedel he didn’t look so good, to which Schiedel replied he felt great, according to Schiedel’s court testimony.
Schiedel then radioed for backup. In response, Jereb said officers wouldn’t arrive in time to help him, Schiedel testified. Due to fear, Schiedel pressed a button to release his police dog, Livo, from his vehicle.
Schiedel said Jereb attempted to coax Livo toward him, and eventually grabbed the dog’s collar and twisted it. Livo bit Jereb’s arm and took the man down, Schiedel testified. The officer then used his Taser to subdue Jereb.
While attempting to handcuff Jereb, Schiedel struggled, and Jereb was able to turn over and grab the Taser and use it against Schiedel several times before the officer got control of it again.
The fight continued for more than four minutes, Schiedel testified, and included Livo continuing to bite Jereb, and Schiedel continuing to use the Taser.
Schiedel used pepper spray, and then realized that Jereb was attempting to escape. Jereb started dragging the officer and the dog toward a creek, Schiedel testified. Schiedel and Livo let Jereb go, and the man went into the creek but was removed and arrested once backup arrived.
According to the appeals court decision, Jereb’s girlfriend gave a differing account of the altercation. She said Schiedel used the Taser against Jereb before Livo was released, and that Livo started biting Jereb when he was already on the ground. The girlfriend testified that she never saw Jereb get the Taser and use it against Schiedel.
Schiedel declined a medical examination immediately after the event, but later experienced concussion symptoms and went to a doctor.
A jury convicted Jereb on six counts, including assault on an officer. Half of the appeal focuses on the jury instructions given to convict Jereb of assault on an officer.
The statute says someone is guilty if the suspect “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with” an officer. The jury found Jereb forcefully opposed Schiedel, but did not assault him.
On appeal, Jereb contended that committing assault is a critical component of a conviction under the cited statute, and the appeals court agreed. Jereb claimed that the jury was not properly instructed on the charge. However, the appeals court ruled that because Jereb proposed the language in that portion of the instructions, any error is his fault, and thus not appealable.
Jereb “requested (and received) jury instructions construing a statute that contradict the construction he now prefers on appeal,” the decision states.
Jereb was also appealing the requirement that he has to participate in mental health treatment. According to case law cited in the appeals court decision, the sentencing judge does need to generally connect the defendant’s actions to the reason for ordering mental health treatment, but does not need to be “hypertechnical” in the connection.
Jereb claimed the judge did not “connect the dots” in relating his behavior to his need for treatment.
The appeals court disagreed, saying the judge twice made the connection. It also outlined some of Jereb’s past violent behavior, including stabbing a man in the chest while allegedly saying “die motherf---er.”
The sentencing judge at the time claimed this behavior was likely not solely the result of drug use, and that Jereb had a tendency to “go off the rails.” That was enough to establish and adequate connection and order mental health treatment, the court ruled.