United States v. Worthey, No. 12-2276 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for receiving child pornography and possessing child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a change of venue where the district court considered Rule 18 factors and where the security concerns from holding the trial in Jonesboro outweighed the inconvenience of holding the trial in Little Rock; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for a new trial where the evidence found on the laptop was sufficient to establish that defendant was the person who downloaded the child pornography and that the files containing child pornography were knowingly downloaded and saved in the laptop's permanent memory; there was no unfair prejudice in the publication of the video clips at issue to the jury; there was no error in applying a five-level enhancement; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vary even further downward.
Court Description: Criminal Case - conviction and sentence. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for change of venue, having considered Rule 18 factors and determined that security concerns outweighed inconvenience. Evidence was sufficient to establish defendant was the person who downloaded the child pornography found on the laptop in his residence, and to establish that the files were knowingly downloaded and save in the laptop's permanent memory and thus the district court did not err in denying motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted video clips to the jury over the defendant's offer to stipulate to their content and no unfair prejudice was evident. Defendant's argument that the district court was required to apply the clear-and-convincing- evidence standard at sentencing fails; record supports a pattern of sexually abusing his minor stepchildren, and district court did not err in applying five-level enhancement. Sentence of 180 months, a substantial downward variance, was not an abuse of discretion. Judge Shepherd concurs.
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.