United States v. Never Misses A Shot, No. 14-1123 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, 18 U.S.C. 1153, 2241(c), and 2246(2)(A) and (D); abusive sexual contact of a child, 18 U.S.C. 1153, 2244(a)(1) and (5), and 2246(3); abusive sexual contact while registered as a sex offender, 18 U.S.C. 2260A. The charges concerned three female victims. At the pretrial hearing, the district court found all six of the government's Rules 413 and 414 witnesses' testimony to be relevant, but conducted the Rule 403 balancing test, which considers whether its potential prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value, and only admitted testimony that defendant pleaded guilty to abusive sexual contact in 1998 for having sexual contact with his 12-year-old female cousin. Defendant committed similar sexual abuse acts against similarly-aged victims. The court, however, denied defendant's attempt to introduce evidence of a molestation suffered by one victim on the theory that the victim may be attributing the actions of someone else to defendant. The court concluded that accepting this argument could open the door to wholesale interrogation of child victims about prior molestations. The Eighth Circuit affirmed his convictions, rejecting arguments that the court erred by improperly coaching the government's counsel and admitting excess propensity evidence.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal case. The district court's comments to the prosecution at a sidebar regarding a possible deficiency in its evidence and the court's decision to permit the government to reopen its case-in-chief were not an abuse of the court' discretion and did not prejudice defendant because the jury did not hear the comments and the evidence at that point was, in any event, sufficient to convict defendant on the count; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for sexual abuse of a minor; the court did not err in rejecting defendant's request for a lesser-included-offense of simple assault; no error in admitting the testimony of six Rule 413 and 414 witnesses as the court concluded the conduct covered by their testimony was similar enough to the conduct charged to prove propensity; even if the admission of six witnesses' testimony raised Rule 403 concerns, any error was harmless in light of the other evidence of propensity; no error in excluding evidence of past sexual assault against a victim under Rule 412.
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.