United States v. Adams, No. 14-2493 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseAdams took her 16-year-old daughter, “M,” to Harris’s house. Harris, a paraplegic, has received morphine pills from the VA for 25 years. Harris regularly sold some of his pills. Adams was a customer. Adams told Harris that M wanted to “show her tits” in exchange for pills. Adams told M that Harris was dying, and that it would make him happy if M “flashed” him. M showed her breasts to Harris, who instructed M to sit on his bed and remove her clothes. M complied. Harris fondled and performed oral sex on her. Harris took nude pictures of M. Harris claims that Adams retrieved the camera and encouraged him to take the pictures. Harris gave Adams two morphine pills. Adams and M left the house. Later Harris asked an acquaintance for help in developing the film. The acquaintance went to the police. M wrote her boyfriend a note, stating that Adams “was willing to use my body to feed her addiction.” The boyfriend’s mother gave the note to police. Police obtained a search warrant for Harris’s home and found the camera, and nude photographs. Adams was charged with permitting her minor child to engage in the production of child pornography. Harris was charged with production and possession of child pornography. Both were charged with sex trafficking of a minor. Harris pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate. Adams moved to dismiss, arguing that the photographs did not portray sexually explicit conduct. Apparently without viewing the photograph, the court denied Adams’s motion. The jury found Adams guilty of sex trafficking and not guilty of production of child pornography. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and that any error in denying the motion to dismiss was harmless.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Beam and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for sex trafficking of a minor where she allowed a man to have sex with a minor in exchange for drugs; any error in denying defendant's pre-trial motion to dismiss a child pornography charge arising from the incident was harmless because the photos of the incident, which defendant contends would not have been admitted if the pornography charge had been dismissed, would have been admissible in the trafficking prosecution even if the pornography charge had been dismissed.
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.