United States v. Christopher Frommelt
971 F.3d 823
| 8th Cir. | 2020Background:
- On Jan. 17, 2018, 16‑year‑old A.E. went to Christopher Frommelt’s house to use methamphetamine; Frommelt (age 41) took photographs, gave drugs, and had sexual intercourse with her while holding a phone/camera.
- Frommelt later sent A.E. a Facebook Messenger message containing a thumbnail/play button for a video that A.E. testified showed the two having sex.
- Separately, Frommelt rented a 2018 Chevy Malibu that K.H. used on multiple trips to Texas to retrieve methamphetamine; on Jan. 29 officers stopped the Malibu and seized 961 grams of meth.
- Walmart money‑transfer records showed Frommelt sent $2,500 to Texas associates during the relevant trip; WhatsApp messages linked Frommelt to co‑conspirators S.W. and K.H., and witnesses testified Frommelt provided methamphetamine to others.
- Indicted on five counts (including sexual exploitation of a child, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, distribution near a protected location, and distribution where a person under 18 was present), Frommelt was convicted on four counts (the distribution‑of‑child‑pornography count was dismissed) and sentenced to 264 months; he appeals the denial of his Rule 29 motion and raises ineffective‑assistance claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for sexual exploitation (18 U.S.C. §2251(a)) | Frommelt: government didn't prove sexually explicit conduct, illicit purpose, persuasion/enticing, or distribution/transmission | Gov't: A.E.'s testimony + Messenger thumbnail/video and prior photo‑taking show sexual intercourse, purpose to produce a video, and interstate transmission | Conviction affirmed; evidence sufficient |
| Sufficiency for conspiracy to distribute meth (21 U.S.C. §§841, 846) | Frommelt: no conspiracy existed; he lacked knowledge and didn't intentionally join | Gov't: circumstantial evidence (rented car used for trips, $2,500 transfers, communications, prior drug exchanges) supports agreement, knowledge, and joining | Conviction affirmed; reasonable juror could infer conspiracy, knowledge, and participation |
| Sufficiency for distribution of meth (including near protected location / where a minor present) | Frommelt: drugs were already on a table; he didn’t supply them | Gov't: testimony from A.E. and Clark that Frommelt provided meth; house ownership and lack of other sources support inference he supplied drugs | Conviction affirmed; evidence supported distribution convictions |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (Sixth Amendment) | Frommelt: trial counsel's performance was deficient and prejudiced him | Gov't: claim not ripe on direct appeal; no developed record, no plain miscarriage, and no readily apparent error | Court declined to address ineffective‑assistance on direct appeal; may be raised under §2255 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sainz Navarrete, 955 F.3d 713 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Raplinger, 555 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining the "purpose" element under §2251)
- United States v. Fortier, 956 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 2020) (statutory verbs in §2251(a) and sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Mallett, 751 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 2014) (circumstantial evidence can establish conspiracy and knowledge)
- United States v. Benitez, 531 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2008) (tacit understanding may prove a conspiracy)
- United States v. Sanchez, 789 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2015) (elements required to prove a drug conspiracy)
- United States v. Slagg, 651 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2011) (conspiracy elements cited)
- United States v. Bradshaw, 955 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2020) (large quantity of drugs as evidence of intent to distribute)
- United States v. Wilder, 597 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2010) (breaking up drugs as evidence of distribution/conspiracy)
- United States v. Jefferson, 725 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2013) (credibility determinations are for the jury)
- United States v. Oliver, 950 F.3d 556 (8th Cir. 2020) (criteria for addressing ineffective‑assistance claims on direct appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)