United States v. Strong, Sr., No. 15-2083 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse for assaulting his girlfriend, as well as related charges. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence, under FRE 409 and 413, of a prior sexual assault defendant committed against his former wife; there was no unfair prejudice other than the issue of spillover, which the district court's decision to sever resolved; and the district court further limited the alleged danger of the prior assault evidence by giving the jury a limiting instruction. The court concluded that defendant's expert witness's accident reconstruction testimony was properly excluded where it was not helpful as required by Rule 702; FRE 403 weighs against including the expert testimony in this case where evidence about how the girlfriend ended up in front of the car has minimal probative value; and defendant's attorney properly cross-examined the girlfriend. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a four-level enhancement for abduction under USSG 2A3.1(b)(5), and a two-level enhancement for physical restraint under USSG 3A1. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Beam, Author, with Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. In a prosecution for aggravated sexual abuse, the court did not err under Rules 409 and 413 in admitting evidence concerning a 2009 sexual assault defendant perpetrated on his then-wife as the court carefully avoided any spill over to other charges by severing the abuse count from other assault charges and by giving a limiting instruction on the jury's use of the evidence; the district court did not err in prohibiting defendant's accident reconstruction expert from testifying regarding the victim being hit by a car as the testimony was not helpful under Rule 702, was of minimal probative value and defendant was permitted to cross-examine the victim regarding her claim that she was injured when defendant threw her in front of a moving car as part of the ongoing criminal incident; no error in imposing sentencing enhancements for both abduction and physical restraint. Judge Kelly, 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.