United States v. Aungie, No. 19-2846 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The court concluded that the district court did not err by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal where the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions; the district court did not err by denying his motions to exclude evidence of prior drug and alcohol use; the district court did not err by excluding expert testimony and his request for a Daubert hearing where the district court determined that no hearing was necessary and the experts were qualified based on their knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education; the district court did not err by excluding text messages between defendant and the victim as hearsay; and any error in excluding specific details of the victim's misbehavior was harmless.
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Colloton and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for aggravated sexual abuse of a child; no error under Rule 404(b)(1) in admitting prior bad acts evidence regarding defendant's intoxication and violence as it provided a context for the sexual abuse allegations and a cogent explanation for the victim's failure to report the abuse earlier; the district court did not err in determining a Daubert hearing was not necessary, and the government's experts were qualified by virtue of the experience, training and education to testify regarding the characteristics of sexually abused children; the text messages between defendant and the victim were hearsay and did not constitute present sense impressions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit them; as evidence of the victim's behavior leading to her decision to disclose the past abuse was admitted, any error in excluding specific details of the misbehavior on relevancy grounds was harmless.
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.