United States v. Charles Heath Stewart
704 F. App'x 855
11th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Charles Heath Stewart was convicted on three counts of producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e) based on photographs and videos taken with his cell phone.
- Prosecutor introduced 15 images from Stewart’s phone depicting young-looking females posed provocatively (some nude, topless, or in translucent swimwear) under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
- Stewart argued another person planted the victim’s photos on his phone and contested the admission of the 15 images and the age of persons depicted.
- District court admitted the 15 images as Rule 404(b) evidence to prove intent, motive, knowledge, and identity; court found probative value outweighed prejudice.
- At sentencing the court applied a four-level enhancement for an offense involving a sexual act under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(2)(B) and imposed three concurrent 360-month terms with two run consecutively to a third (total 720 months).
- Stewart challenged both the evidentiary rulings and the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence on appeal; Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | United States' Argument | Stewart's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 15 images under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) | Images show Stewart’s prurient interest, intent, motive, and identity | Images were not proven to depict minors and were thus unfairly prejudicial | Court affirmed admission: images probative of intent/motive/identity; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Relevance despite uncertain ages of persons depicted | Images need not be criminal acts; they are probative of interest in underdeveloped females | Lack of proof persons were <18 undermines relevance | Court held images admissible as probative evidence of sexual interest in underdeveloped females |
| Procedural challenge to sentencing enhancement based on judicial factfinding | Enhancement appropriate under Guidelines calculations | Judicial factfinding to increase offense level violates procedural rules | Court rejected challenge as foreclosed by Eleventh Circuit precedent allowing guideline calculations by judicial factfinding (so long as statutory range unchanged) |
| Substantive reasonableness of 60-year sentence | Severe conduct, ongoing abuse, threats, recordings, and aggravating facts justified the sentence | Sentence is excessive given Guidelines and circumstances | Court found sentence substantively reasonable and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dickerson, 248 F.3d 1036 (11th Cir. 2001) (extrinsic offenses admitted when they show same intent as charged offense)
- United States v. Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (Rule 404(b) allows noncriminal acts and admission turns on probative value vs. prejudice)
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (presence of images on defendant’s device can rebut claim they were planted)
- United States v. Charles, 757 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2014) (district court may make guideline calculations based on judicial factfinding if statutory range is not increased)
- United States v. Hamaker, 455 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2006) (relevant conduct, including abuse leading to underlying offense, may be considered at sentencing)