United States v. Boyle, No. 12-1164 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of the sexual exploitation of a minor and attempting to sexually exploit a minor, as well as possession of materials involving the exploitation of a minor. Defendant appealed his convictions, principally arguing that his conviction on Count Two must be set aside because the jury might have convicted him for producing the still images that were at issue in Count One. Because the district court already had ruled that there was insufficient evidence to show that defendant produced the still images, defendant asserted that the district court erred by failing to ensure that the jury did not consider those images when deliberating Count Two. The court held that defendant's arguments were not raised in the district court and the court concluded that there was no plain error. Even assuming the instructions did not inform the jury to exclude the still images from consideration when deciding Count Two, that alleged shortcoming in the instructions was not a basis to set aside the conviction. The court disposed of defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Assuming the instructions did not inform the jury to exclude the still images charged in dismissed count one from their consideration of count two charging production of a videotape of child pornography, the alleged shortcoming in the instruction did not require setting aside the conviction; claim that defendant was subjected to double jeopardy because the conviction in count two was premised on conduct charged in the dismissed count one is rejected; decision to turn off the public gallery monitor when the tape was played was not plain error; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for sexual exploitation of a minor and possession of materials depicting sexual exploitation.
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.