United States v. Goldesberry, 128 F.4th 1183

Raymond Lee Goldesberry was convicted after a jury trial for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor under 12 in Indian Country in violation of federal law.
The incident occurred in 2017, when Goldesberry’s daughter (K.G.), then nearly 12, crawled into bed with her father after a nightmare; the room was dark and Goldesberry’s wife was absent.
K.G. testified she awoke to inappropriate touching by her father, who, when confronted, claimed he mistook K.G. for his wife in the dark.
The case turned on whether Goldesberry acted knowingly or by mistake; both K.G. and Goldesberry consistently maintained it was an accident.
Goldesberry was convicted and sentenced to 30 years, the mandatory minimum, and appealed arguing insufficient evidence of the required mens rea and prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments.
The Tenth Circuit, sitting en banc, determined there was insufficient evidence of knowledge to support the conviction and vacated the conviction, remanding the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Evidence (Knowledge)	Goldesberry did not knowingly touch K.G.; it was a mistake, not intentional.	Govt. argued ample circumstantial evidence showed knowledge; jury found intent.	Evidence insufficient on mens rea; conviction vacated.
Application of Equipoise Principle	Evidence supports innocence as much as guilt; so, reasonable doubt exists.	Govt. downplayed or sought to limit application of equipoise principle.	Equipoise principle applies; evidence is in equipoise, requiring reversal.
Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing	Misstatements during closing argument prejudiced rights.	Govt. claimed any misstatements were harmless or corrected by instructions.	Court did not reach (decision on sufficiency grounds).
Standard for Sufficiency Review	Must affirm only if evidence proves each element beyond reasonable doubt.	Urged deference to jury on intent.	Independent review required; insufficient here.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sets constitutional minimum for sufficiency of evidence in criminal trials; proof beyond a reasonable doubt required)
United States v. Lovern, 590 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2009) (evidence in equipoise between guilt and innocence requires reversal)
United States v. Arutunoff, 1 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 1993) (describes standard for sufficiency review of evidence, deference to jury but prohibits speculation)
United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 2005) (factfinder's discretion limited by reasonableness and proof standard)
United States v. Dobbs, 629 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2011) (defining 'knowingly' for criminal statutes; requires more than accident or mistake)
United States v. Cavazos, 565 U.S. 1 (2011) (emphasizes deference to jury in sufficiency of evidence review)