United States v. Guy Wilson
142 F.4th 1045
| 8th Cir. | 2025Background
- Guy Wilson was convicted by a jury for attempted production of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e), after installing hidden cameras in a house where his girlfriend's minor daughter, B.Z., lived.
- The hidden cameras were placed in B.Z.'s room and bathroom, capturing images and videos of her nude or partially clothed, including close-ups of her genitals and pubic area.
- Wilson saved screenshots focusing on the minor’s genitals, which led to his indictment and subsequent trial on attempted, not completed, production charges.
- At trial, Wilson argued he lacked intent to create child pornography and that the images were not lascivious as required by law.
- The jury found him guilty; the district court denied his motions for acquittal, declined to reduce his sentence for acceptance of responsibility, and sentenced him to 240 months in custody.
Issues
| Issue | Wilson's Argument | Gov't Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriateness of Dost-plus jury instructions | Fourth Dost factor (nudity) misleading; should clarify nudity alone is not enough | Dost-plus factors are established and helpful for jury | Proper to instruct jury with Dost-plus factors |
| Instructions re: definitive/exhaustive nature of Dost-plus factors | Jury should be told Dost-plus factors are not exhaustive | Overall instructions conveyed factors were not strict or exclusive | Instructions were adequate and not an abuse of discretion |
| Refusal of proposed instruction on subjective intent | Jury must focus only on whether images appear sexual, not on Wilson’s intent | Wilson’s intent relevant to the attempt element; proposed instruction was confusing | District court properly rejected proposed instruction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for "lascivious exhibition" | No sufficient evidence that images met definition | Substantial steps taken, conduct intended to capture such images | Sufficient evidence existed to uphold the conviction |
| Denial of sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility | Argued for reduction despite contesting intent at trial | Reduction not warranted when contesting essential elements at trial | Denial was not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McCoy, 108 F.4th 639 (8th Cir. 2024) (Dost factors and distinction between fact and law regarding lascivious exhibition)
- United States v. Burch, 113 F.4th 815 (8th Cir. 2024) (discussing intent and substantial steps in attempted production cases)
- United States v. Wallenfang, 568 F.3d 649 (8th Cir. 2009) (lasciviousness analysis depending on focus and context of images)
- United States v. Horn, 187 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 1999) (importance of focus and exposure in child pornography cases)
- United States v. Kemmerling, 285 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2002) (distinguishing between clinical and lascivious images)
- United States v. Johnson, 639 F.3d 433 (8th Cir. 2011) (inference allowed if camera aimed to capture pubic area)