United States v. Benton Stong
773 F.3d 920
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Benton Stong lived alone and intermittently hosted four boys (ages 10–12) at his apartment in summer 2012; law enforcement seized two computers and a camera containing pornographic images/videos of those boys.
- Files included videos of anal intercourse and mutual fellatio among the boys; computers listed “Ben” as registered owner and an OS contained the name “Ben Stong.”
- Parents identified their children in redacted images; one parent identified Stong’s voice on videos and the apartment as the location where some material was made.
- Stong was convicted of one count of sexual exploitation of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)) and four counts of possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A), and the district court computed an adjusted offense level above the Guidelines cap, producing an advisory life range.
- The district court rejected Stong’s objections to specific Guidelines enhancements, denied downward departure/variance requests based on age/poor health, and imposed consecutive statutory maximums totaling 110 years (the procedural posture on appeal is convictions and sentence affirmed).
Issues
| Issue | Stong's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of video recordings (hearsay) | Statements on videos were inadmissible hearsay | Recorded statements are admissions by an opposing party | Court affirmed admission: statements admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A) |
| Need for limiting instruction when voice excerpts played | Court should have given limiting instruction under Rule 105 | Statements were admissible as party-opponent admissions, so no limiting instruction required | No abuse of discretion; limiting instruction unnecessary |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 2251 (sexual exploitation) | Evidence showed boys’ conduct was play/exploration, not produced by Stong | Pornography was created/stored in Stong’s apartment, devices registered to “Ben,” voice and location ID tied to Stong | Conviction affirmed: reasonable jury could find Stong used/photographed minors to create pornography |
| Sufficiency for possession convictions (§ 2252A) | Government failed to show Stong knowingly possessed files | Pornography stored on devices in Stong’s sole-occupancy apartment and tied to him via creation evidence | Convictions affirmed: reasonable jury could infer knowing possession |
| Guidelines enhancements (sexual act; sadistic/violent material) | Enhancements were improper | Even without enhancements, offense level exceeds the Guidelines cap; any error harmless | Harmless error: total offense level capped at 43 regardless, and court said it would sentence the same |
| Downward departure/variance for age/health | Stong sought departure/variance for advanced age and poor health | District court weighed § 3553(a) factors and declined to reduce sentence | No abuse: court lawfully considered factors and refused downward relief |
| Substantive reasonableness of 110-year sentence | 110 years is effectively life and disproportionate given age/health | Sentence within advisory range, reflects gravity, deterrence, protection of community | Affirmed: deferential review finds no abuse of discretion; § 3553(a) factors properly considered |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. McPike, 512 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2008) (recorded statements as party admissions)
- United States v. Vanhorn, 740 F.3d 1166 (8th Cir. 2014) (use of a minor to create pornography under § 2251)
- United States v. Fadl, 498 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2007) (photographing a minor to create pornography satisfies § 2251)
- United States v. Manning, 738 F.3d 937 (8th Cir.) (mens rea for possession of child pornography)
- United States v. Bastian, 603 F.3d 460 (8th Cir. 2010) (harmlessness of certain Guidelines errors)
- United States v. Betcher, 534 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2008) (upholding very long cumulative sentences)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)