United States v. Oldrock, No. 16-2633 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseJade Oldrock was convicted of the aggravated sexual abuse of a child and committing a felony sex offense as a registered sex offender. The district court sentenced Oldrock to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence for each offense, which amounted to a total of 40 years’ imprisonment. Oldrock appealed, claiming the district court abused its discretion by admitting unduly prejudicial testimony from two witnesses at trial and by denying his motion for mistrial. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. In a prosecution for aggravated sexual abuse of a child, the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a similar assault on another child victim as the evidence was relevant and its probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403; testimony by forensic examiner concerning the interview process was admissible under Rule 401 as it provided relevant information which helped the jury understand the investigative process; no error in permitting the examiner to testify as a lay witness regarding the forensic process and her personal opinion of the victim's interview; no error in denying a mistrial after the examiner testified that she recommended trauma counseling, no contact with defendant and a medical exam after conducting the exam; while the testimony went beyond the limits the district court had set for the witness's testimony, the court immediately struck the answer and instructed the jury to disregard it, and there is no basis for concluding the jury did not follow the court's directions. 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.