United States v. Free, No. 19-3207 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for sexual abuse of a minor under the age of twelve years old (count I); sexual abuse of a minor between the ages of twelve and sixteen years old (count III); and abusive sexual contact (count V).
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence against the victim where any evidence of the victim's drug use would not have tended to prove the alleged motives of retaliation and avoiding punishment. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction on count I. The court further held that the district court gave due consideration to defense counsel's well-thought-out, well-presented argument for a lesser-than-life sentence, and did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant's age did not warrant a downward variance from the advisory Guidelines sentence.
Court Description: [Wollman, Author, with Colloton and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit testimony regarding whether the minor victim in this sex abuse prosecution had drugs in her bedroom or had tested positive for marijuana shortly before she disclosed defendant had been sexually abusing her; while evidence that the victim had been disciplined and feared other discipline was relevant to show that the victim had a motive to make a false accusation in retaliation, any evidence of the victim's drug use would not have tended to prove the alleged motives of retaliation and avoiding punishment and was properly excluded; the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that defendant had knowingly engaged in a sex act with the victim before she had attained the age of 12; the district court gave due consideration to defendant's argument for a lesser-than-life sentence, and the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant's age did not warrant a downward variance from the advisory guidelines range.
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.