History
  • No items yet
midpage
United States v. Darran Lohse
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14085
| 8th Cir. | 2015
Read the full case

Background

  • Lohse lived with his girlfriend and her 3-year-old daughter, K.S.; the girlfriend found SD‑card photos showing Lohse naked with his penis on/near K.S.’s face and alerted police. Officers seized multiple storage devices (Gateway server/computer hard drives and a Maxell CD) that contained child‑pornography files.
  • A grand jury indicted Lohse for producing child pornography (18 U.S.C. §2251) based on nine SD‑card images (count 1) and later returned a superseding six‑count indictment adding one receipt count (count 2) and four possession counts tied to specific devices (counts 3–6).
  • The district court ordered the government to identify the images it would rely on for each count; the government identified four videos for the receipt count (downloaded to an IBM Deskstar drive) and specified videos for each possession count; the revised verdict form listed those four receipt videos.
  • At trial the government introduced the nine SD‑card images for the production charge and multiple videos from the various drives/CD for the receipt and possession counts; the jury convicted on all counts.
  • Post‑trial, the district court dismissed one possession count as a lesser‑included offense of receipt (count 3) but denied Lohse’s motions for acquittal on production and to dismiss counts 4–6; Lohse was sentenced to 240 months.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Lohse) Defendant's Argument (Government) Held
Sufficiency of evidence that images were "sexually explicit" / lascivious for production (§2251) Images not lascivious; adult nudity near sleeping child is not sexual enough Images show sexually suggestive setting, intended to elicit sexual response, and portray child as sexual object; jury instruction used Dost factors Affirmed — a reasonable jury could find lascivious exhibition and thus production proved beyond reasonable doubt
Whether K.S. was "used . . . to engage in" sexually explicit conduct under §2251(a) Mere presence of a sleeping child is not "use"; statute requires active participation or active sexual conduct Jury instruction that photographing constitutes "use" is proper; evidence supports that child was used as an object in photos Affirmed — no plain error in instruction; evidence supports that K.S. was used as a sexual object
Whether district court erred by failing to give lesser‑included instruction (receipt vs possession) (double jeopardy) Receipt is broad enough to include possession counts; failure to instruct deprived Lohse of protection against multiple convictions Government identified distinct videos/devices for receipt and for each possession count; verdict form showed receipt conviction tied to four Deskstar videos, not the other devices Affirmed — no plain error; verdict form and evidence showed receipt and possession convictions rested on different factual predicates
Whether possession counts (counts 4–6) were multiplicitous (same unit of prosecution) Possessing multiple media found together is a single offense under §2252A(a)(5)(B); counts should merge Under current law it is not clear Congress intended single unit when separate devices contain different files; Hinkeldey controls Affirmed — multiplicity claim fails under plain‑error review; separate counts permissible

Key Cases Cited

  • United States v. Johnson, 639 F.3d 433 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
  • Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct.) (evidence sufficiency standard)
  • United States v. Kemmerling, 285 F.3d 644 (8th Cir.) (more than mere nudity required for "lascivious")
  • United States v. Horn, 187 F.3d 781 (8th Cir.) (Dost factors are non‑exhaustive guidance)
  • United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal.) (enumeration of factors for determining lasciviousness)
  • United States v. Wallenfang, 568 F.3d 649 (8th Cir.) (not all Dost factors must be present)
  • United States v. Hinkeldey, 626 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir.) (unit‑of‑prosecution/multiplicity analysis)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Darran Lohse
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Date Published: Aug 12, 2015
Citation: 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14085
Docket Number: 14-3071
Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.