United States v. Smith, No. 14-2912 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseSmith created an online photo-sharing account. Several law enforcement agencies independently observed Smith trading naked pictures of his 10-year-old stepdaughter, M; offering pornographic pictures of M. for purported pornographic pictures of an undercover agent's daughter; and proposing sexual relations with the purported 13-year-old daughter of an undercover agent and recording the encounter. Officers executed a warrant. Told of the reason for the search, Smith admitted viewing child pornography. Officers found more than 800 photos and 144 video files on Smith's laptop depicting child pornography. Smith admitted that he had sexual encounters with his minor stepdaughter, R, since she was five years old; had touched the genitals of M.; and used pen cameras to take pictures and videos of his stepdaughters in the shower. Officers found the pen cameras, which had 11 video files and more than 600 photos of the girls and a friend. Smith pleaded guilty to production, attempted production, receipt, and transportation of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2251, 18 U.S.C. 2252A. The court calculated Smith's Guideline sentence to be life imprisonment. Smith’s plea agreement stipulated a downward variance of four levels. The court acknowledged the stipulation, stating that the range would be 292 to 365 months, but that "there are some things,… just so vile and horrendous that the dismay, the disdain, …it's the same as witnessing it yourself." Addressing Smith's difficult childhood, the court stated that "[i]t's very difficult, … to find anything that excuses such conduct." The Eighth Circuit affirmed Smith’s 720-month sentence.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Smith and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court adequately addressed the 3553(a) factors and adequately explained its reasons for defendant's sentence; punishment of 720 months was not substantively unreasonable as the sentences imposed for each count, 360 months, were both within the Guidelines range, and the court's decision to make the sentences consecutive was not an abuse of its discretion, given the nature of the offenses (distribution of child pornography involving defendant's ten-year-old stepdaughter).
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.