USA V. WC, JUVENILE MALE, No. 16-30063 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 12 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-30063 D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00062-BMM-1 v. W.C., JUVENILE MALE, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 8, 2016** Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. W.C. was adjudicated to be a juvenile delinquent and sentenced to three years of probation after it was determined by bench trial that he had committed two counts of aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2241(c). W.C. argues there was insufficient evidence at trial to support his conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review the sufficiency of the evidence presented at a bench trial de novo. See United States v. Jiang, 476 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2007). We must affirm a conviction if “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Our review of the record confirms sufficient evidence was presented at trial from which a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that W.C. committed the essential elements of the charged crimes. Although conflicting testimony was presented at trial, the district court carefully considered all of the evidence presented and was able to evaluate the demeanor and disposition of the witnesses. The district court heard the victims testify regarding the instances of sexual abuse, and also heard the testimony of the victims’ parents. W.C. testified in his own defense, as did his mother. We must respect the exclusive province of the fact finder to determine the credibility of these witnesses, to resolve the evidentiary conflicts raised, and to draw reasonable inferences from proven facts. See United States v. Hubbard, 96 F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir. 1996). AFFIRMED. 2
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.
