United States v. Danny Teague
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14543
9th Cir.2013Background
- Teague was convicted of receipt and possession of child pornography; possession is a lesser included offense of receipt, potentially triggering Double Jeopardy.
- Indictment charged receipt based on computer files and possession based on computer plus CD files; no explicit separate-conduct instruction was given to the jury.
- CDs found under Teague’s computer desk contained about 760 images, created 2002–2003, with ownership indicia and explicit Teague materials.
- Computer files contained roughly 20 image files and 11 movies downloaded in 2005; CDs were kept in a briefcase with receipts and documents addressed to Teague.
- Jury delivered a general verdict without a separate-conduct instruction; government contended computer files supported receipt and CDs supported possession.
- Court held error occurred by not assuring separate conduct but that the error was not prejudicial given overwhelming evidence of CD possession and thus affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dual conviction for receipt and possession violatess Double Jeopardy as multiplicitous | Teague argues counts based on same conduct | United States contends separate media allow separate conduct | No reversal for multiplicity; potential separate conduct exists but not dispositive |
| Whether the trial court’s failure to instruct on separate conduct required reversal | Teague—error affected substantial rights | Government—no prejudice from lack of instruction | Plain error acknowledged but not prejudicial; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davenport, 619 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review for double jeopardy claims)
- United States v. Overton, 573 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2009) (separate-conduct framework for multiplicitous charges)
- United States v. Schales, 546 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2008) (media-based separate charges allowed; prior case for media separation analysis)
- United States v. Alferahin, 433 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2006) (instructional error and impact on substantial rights)
- United States v. Nguyen, 565 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2009) (prejudice standard for omitted element/instruction)