United States v. Alexander Lukashov, Jr.
694 F.3d 1107
9th Cir.2012Background
- Lukashov was convicted by jury of aggravated sexual abuse of TF under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) for acts during a cross‑country trip with TF, who was eight years old.
- TF disclosed abuse after returning home; Lukashov’s care of the children and the trip included Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, New York, and Oregon.
- CARES evaluated TF; Dr. Lorenz found abnormal bruises and, with verbal and physical findings, testified that TF’s accounts were consistent with abuse.
- DNA analysis found spermatozoa on TF’s underwear fabric cuttings matching Lukashov’s profile; no semen or sperm found on the pink blanket.
- The government presented trial evidence, including TF’s videotaped interview with Petke, Dr. Lorenz’s testimony on abuse‑victim characteristics, and defense testimony suggesting Cassedy coached TF to allege abuse.
- The district court admitted some evidence over defense objections, ruled on venue theories, and sentenced Lukashov to 30 years; Lukashov appealed arguing evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of evidence, and venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue as a continuing offense | Lukashov asserts venue must be based on where offense began. | Lukashov contends venue could not be established in Oregon under §3237(a) paragraph 1. | Venue proper under the first paragraph; continuing offense doctrine applied. |
| Sufficiency of purpose element for §2241(c) | Government must prove a dominant purpose to cross state lines for abuse. | Crossing with a commercial purpose may still satisfy purpose if dominant purpose to abuse proven. | Sufficient evidence that a dominant purpose to abuse TF existed, beyond incidental travel. |
| Admission of CARES interview under Rule 803(4) | Statements to Petke were for medical diagnosis/treatment and admissible. | Statements were not for medical purposes and are hearsay. | Admissible under Rule 803(4); interview tied to medical evaluation. |
| Testimony on victim’s credibility (Dr. Lorenz) | Expert testimony on abuse characteristics aided the jury. | Expert bolstered credibility and invaded jury’s fact‑finding function. | Proper under Rule 702; testimony limited to general characteristics and consistency with allegations. |
| Prior acts of Cassedy (Rule 404(b)) | Evidence shows pattern of false allegations by Cassedy. | Prior acts admissible for motive/intent. | Exclusion upheld; Rule 404(b) probability reasoning not warranted; harmless error if any. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Casch, 448 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2006) (venue inquiries and jury instruction on venue)
- Angotti v. United States, 105 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 1997) (venue for continuing offenses; law v. fact distinction)
- United States v. Childs, 5 F.3d 1328 (9th Cir. 1993) (venue determinations in continuing offenses)
- United States v. Cryar, 232 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir. 2000) (essential conduct elements for continuing offenses)
- Rodriguez-Moreno v. United States, 526 U.S. 275 (1999) (location of the commission of criminal acts; continuing offense framework)
- United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2007) (continuing offense concept; governing scope of venue)
- United States v. Stinson, 647 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (continuing offenses and venue considerations)
- United States v. Miller, 111 F.3d 747 (10th Cir. 1997) (harmless error when venue instruction omitted)
- United States v. Hadley, 918 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1990) (expert testimony on victim class characteristics)
- United States v. Binder, 769 F.2d 595 (9th Cir. 1985) (expert testimony bolstering credibility; improper use)
- United States v. Whitted, 11 F.3d 782 (8th Cir. 1993) (expert testimony permissible to summarize medical findings)
- United States v. Antone, 981 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (limits on expert testimony regarding abuse)
- United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1999) (doctor’s testimony on consistency with allegations)