United States v. Gregory Bartunek, 969 F.3d 860

In March 2016 police executed a search warrant at Bartunek’s home after a tip; officers seized two hard drives and a thumb drive containing over 400 child-pornography images, some stamped as downloaded from Omegle.
A grand jury charged Bartunek with distribution of child pornography and possession of sexually explicit images of a minor; a jury convicted him and the district court sentenced him to 204 months’ imprisonment.
Photographs of four life-sized child-replica dolls (some modified to include a rubber nodule resembling a penis) found in Bartunek’s bedroom were admitted at trial over his objection.
S.P., a witness, testified he viewed child pornography with Bartunek in 1999–2002; cross-examination revealed S.P.’s own juvenile conviction and that he and Bartunek shared a victim.
An investigator testified about a 2013 visit to Bartunek’s home, mentioning a driveway traffic cone bearing the word “chimo”; Bartunek moved for a mistrial based on that testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of doll photographs (404(b)/intrinsic/403)	Bartunek: dolls were lawfully possessed and unrelated character evidence; admission was propensity evidence.	Government: dolls showed motive/sexual interest and were intrinsic or admissible under 404(b); probative value outweighed prejudice.	Court: Admission under 404(b) proper as evidence of motive; any lack of limiting instruction harmless; 403 exclusion not warranted.
Admissibility of S.P. testimony (Rule 414/403; timing)	Bartunek: S.P.’s long-ago conduct was unduly prejudicial and should be excluded under Rule 403 despite Rule 414 notice.	Government: S.P.’s testimony showed prior child-molestation (viewing child pornography) admissible under Rule 414 to show propensity, knowledge, intent.	Court: Testimony admissible under Rule 414; 20-year lapse did not render it unfairly prejudicial; limiting instruction given.
Denial of mistrial over investigator’s 2013 testimony re: cone reading “chimo” (404/403/401; mistrial)	Bartunek: reference implied he was a child molester, was hearsay/character evidence, and so prejudicial a mistrial was required.	Government: the 2013 encounter showed similar evasiveness and was background/context; isolated comment not emphasized.	Court: Reference to “chimo” was inadmissible if offered for truth but was an isolated non-emphasized remark; limiting instruction sufficed and mistrial not required given trial context and other evidence.

United States v. Steinmetz, 900 F.3d 595 (8th Cir. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Guzman, 926 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2019) (distinguishing intrinsic evidence from other-act evidence)
United States v. Fechner, 952 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2020) (child erotica and prior acts not necessarily intrinsic; use for motive/knowledge under 404(b))
United States v. Heidebur, 122 F.3d 577 (8th Cir. 1997) (prior sexual contact not intrinsic to distinct possession charges)
United States v. Furman, 867 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2017) (prior conduct probative of sexual interest and motive)
United States v. Emmert, 825 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2016) (Rule 414 permits evidence of other child molestation including child-pornography acts)
United States v. Gabe, 237 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2001) (propensity evidence under Rule 414 is not unfairly prejudicial in the same way as Rule 403 contemplates)
United States v. Evans, 802 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2015) (disturbing nature of evidence alone does not mandate exclusion under Rule 403)