United States v. Gonyer
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14952
1st Cir.2014Background
- Defendant Carey Gonyer, a 41-year-old farmhand, befriended and supervised a 15–16 year-old coworker ("TT") and began sexually abusing him when TT was 15; abuse continued after TT turned 16.
- While the relationship continued, Gonyer repeatedly asked TT to take pictures of his genitals; TT complied on multiple occasions after turning 16.
- TT disclosed the abuse to a school counselor; a grand jury indicted Gonyer on three counts of sexual exploitation of a child (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)) and one count of possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)).
- At trial the district court admitted TT’s testimony about the prior sexual abuse over Gonyer’s Rule 403 objection, treating it as 404(b) evidence relevant to motive and absence of mistake; jury convicted on all counts.
- At sentencing the court applied three 2-level enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b): victim age (12–15), sexual act/contact, and custody/care/supervisory control, producing an effective Guidelines life range and an imposed sentence of 420 months.
- On appeal the First Circuit affirmed both the conviction (admissibility of prior abuse evidence) and the sentence (proper application of the three § 2G2.1(b) enhancements).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gonyer) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of TT’s testimony about prior sexual abuse under Rules 404(b) & 403 | Evidence was unduly prejudicial and should be excluded under Rule 403 | Evidence had special relevance under Rule 404(b) to show motive, absence of mistake, and to complete the story; prejudice was not substantially greater than probative value | Admission affirmed: evidence was specially relevant (motive, lack of accident) and district court did not abuse discretion under Rule 403 (limiting instructions, contextual probative value) |
| Standard of review for 404(b)/403 rulings | Urged adoption of multi-tiered Clay approach (clear error/de novo/abuse) | First Circuit should adhere to its precedent and abuse-of-discretion review | Panel declined to change precedent; reviewed relevance for plain error (forfeiture) and Rule 403 for abuse of discretion; no reversible error |
| § 2G2.1(b)(1)(B) — Victim age (12–15) enhancement | Enhancement applies only if the victim was under 16 at time the visual depiction was produced | Offense includes the inducement/enticement process; conduct while victim was under 16 may be part of the offense, so enhancement applies | Affirmed: court may consider the victim’s age during the inducement/grooming process because statutory offense covers persuading/inducing a minor; not limited to age at moment photo produced |
| § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) — Sexual act/contact enhancement | Photos did not depict sexual acts; prior abuse was not proven to be undertaken to prepare for the photos, so enhancement improper | The offense encompasses the persuasion/enticement conduct; prior sexual acts can be part of the course of conduct leading to production of images | Affirmed: enhancement proper because the offense is broader than the mere image and the court did not clearly err in finding the sexual acts were part of the grooming/enticement leading to images |
| § 2G2.1(b)(5) — Custody/care/supervisory control enhancement | Enhancement requires defendant’s custody/control at the exact time the photo was taken; Gonyer was not physically present when one photo taken | Gonyer supervised and trained TT at the farm, often was sole adult in charge; TT was entrusted to his care—fits "custody, care, or supervisory control" | Affirmed: enhancement appropriate; presence at the instant of a photo is not required when the minor was generally under defendant’s supervisory control |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Roszkowski, 700 F.3d 50 (1st Cir.) (discussing Rule 404(b) and improper use of propensity evidence)
- United States v. Doe, 741 F.3d 217 (1st Cir.) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Clay, 667 F.3d 689 (6th Cir.) (multi-tiered review approach urged but not adopted)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error and forfeiture principles)
- United States v. D'Alora, 585 F.2d 16 (1st Cir.) (other-act evidence may be admitted to "complete the story" and show context)
- United States v. Smith, 795 F.2d 841 (9th Cir.) (§ 2251(a) does not require that a depiction actually be produced)
- United States v. Sirois, 87 F.3d 34 (2d Cir.) (a defendant may have multiple overlapping motives—e.g., sexual gratification and production of images)