United States v. Davila
1:12-cr-10004
D.S.D.Oct 5, 2012Background
- Davila was convicted of two counts of abusive sexual contact on July 18, 2012 in the District of South Dakota.
- Davila moved for a judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a) after trial.
- The court reviews sufficiency of evidence for acquittal with a strict standard, viewing evidence in the government's favor and resolving conflicts in the government's favor.
- Count I elements: knowingly engaging in sexual contact with TO (genitalia/groin/inner thigh), TO under 12, Indian status, and occurrence in Indian Country.
- Count I victim testified that Davila’s hand rubbed her inner thigh; she drew the area on a chart corroborating the location.
- Count II concerns abuse allegedly in winter 2003 when TO was 13; testimony and other evidence place the time frame within the indictment period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count I | Davila did touch the victim's sexual area with sexual intent. | Insufficient evidence that Davila touched the victim's genitalia or that he had the requisite intent. | Evidence supports all elements; no acquittal warranted. |
| Timeliness of Count II conduct | On or about language suffices within a reasonable time of February/March 2003. | Testimony on cross-examination sought to confine the act to February/March 2003; not conclusively proved. | On or about language satisfied timing; sufficient evidence placed the act within the indictment period. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Burks, 934 F.2d 148 (8th Cir. 1991) (very limited latitude to overturn verdict for sufficiency; standard of review strict)
- United States v. Johnson, 639 F.3d 433 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for sufficiency is strict)
- United States v. Hernandez, 301 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2002) (limited latitude in acquittal motions; view evidence favorably to government)
- United States v. Thomson, 285 F.3d 731 (8th Cir. 2002) (evidence-inference approach favoring the verdict)
- United States v. Coleman, 584 F.3d 1121 (8th Cir. 2009) (reasonable inferences support a jury verdict)
- United States v. Kenyon, 397 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir. 2005) (on or about language relieves exact-date proving requirement)
- United States v. Hollow Horn, 523 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2008) (certain sexual contacts can imply intent)
- United States v. Lee, 232 F.3d 653 (8th Cir. 2000) (victim’s testimony can imply intent when contact is sexual)
- United States v. Demarrias, 876 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1989) (some sexual contacts do not require explicit intent)
- United States v. DeCoteau, 630 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 2011) (indictment timing considerations in sexual-offense cases)