United States v. Frank Sanchez, No. 21-3138 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Defendant appealed after a jury convicted him of abusive sexual contact of a minor. Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to establish the offense occurred in Indian Country, that the district court erred by admitting uncharged conduct as propensity evidence, and that the use of acquitted conduct to increase his sentence violated his constitutional rights.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained Major Crimes Act gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by an Indian within Indian Country, including abusive sexual contact. Here, the deputy superintendent of the trust for the BIA’s Yankton Agency with nearly 32 years of experience, testified that the tract was part of the Yankton Sioux Reservation in 2006. Accordingly, the court held that it would not disturb the conviction because the deputy’s testimony provided a reasonable basis for the jury to find the offense occurred in Indian Country. Further, the court wrote that in affording great weight to the district court’s balancing, it found no abuse of discretion in admitting the evidence under Rules 413 and 414.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Stras and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. The government sufficiently proved that the crime in question occurred in Indian Country on the Yankton Sioux Reservation; no error in admitting prior acts of child molestation and sexual assault under Rules 413 and 414 as the evidence was highly probative of defendant's propensity to molest young girls; even though one of the incidents occurred more than 35 years ago, it was not an abuse of the district court's discretion to admit the evidence as it bore a striking resemblance to the charged conduct and this court has consistently rejected a time-limit on prior child molestation evidence; the district court limited any prejudice by giving limiting instructions; under this court's binding precedents, a district court may consider acquitted conduct at sentencing without violating a defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
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.