United States v. Johnson, Jr., No. 10-1496 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of knowingly receiving child pornography and knowingly possessing child pornography. On appeal, defendant asserted that there was insufficient evidence to support his receipt conviction or, in the alternative, that his convictions for both receiving and possessing the same images of child pornography violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. In light of United States v. Inman, the court found that the jury was not properly instructed and there was no objection to the erroneous instruction at trial. Therefore, the evidence presented in this case was clearly insufficient to satisfy the erroneous jury instruction because the government presented no evidence that the materials used to produce defendant's computer traveled in interstate commerce before they were assembled into the computer. The court further held that the government's evidence on the statutory element was not "overwhelming" and a rational jury could have concluded that the government failed to prove the element beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated defendant's conviction for receiving child pornography and remanded for resentencing on his conviction for possessing child pornography.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. There was insufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for receipt of child pornography as the government failed to show that the materials used to produce defendant's computer had traveled in interstate commerce before they were assembled into the computer; applying U.S. v. Inman's rigorous standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence challenges where the jury has not been properly instructed on the elements of the offense, the court could not say that the evidence on the issue was so overwhelming that there was no reasonable doubt that any rational juror would have found the government had proven the statutory element; as a result, the conviction on that count is reversed and the matter is remanded for resentencing on defendant's conviction for possession of child pornography. Judge Smith, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.