United States v. Emmert, Jr., No. 14-2969 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence and conviction for possession of child pornography. The court affirmed the district court's decision to admit evidence of defendant's prior acts of sexual abuse where the evidence that defendant sexually abused his younger sister when he was 17-years-old and sexually abused his 13-year-old daughter is probative of defendant's interest in underage girls, and defendant performed or possessed images depicting similar explicit acts on each victim. Moreover, for FRE 414 purposes, it does not matter that defendant’s prior sexual abuse of his sister occurred up to twenty years before the instant offense. The court also concluded that the district court did not err when it considered defendant’s prior conviction for sexual assault in applying the 18 U.S.C. 2252(b) sentencing enhancement where ACCA sentencing enhancements based on convictions for crimes committed as a juvenile do not violate the Eighth Amendment. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding one victim restitution, nor did the district court clearly err in determining the amount of the loss to be $500. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Melloy, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. No error in admitting evidence that defendant committed two sexual assaults against minors in this prosecution for possession of child pornography as the evidence was probative of defendant's sexual interests in underage girls and the images depicted acts similar to those involved in the sexual assault incidents; there is no time limit on Rule 414 evidence and the fact that one of the incidents occurred in 1989 did not preclude admission of the evidence; ACCA sentencing enhancements based on convictions for crimes committed as a juvenile do not violate the Eighth Amendment; restitution award to one victim affirmed.
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.