United States v. J.A.S.
862 F.3d 543
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- In Feb 2014, eight-year-old victim (KV) accused her 17-year-old uncle (JAS) of vaginal rape on tribal land; KV described the act using child terms (e.g., “put his pee in [her]”).
- KV disclosed the assault to her mother and to nurses; nurses’ exam (performed over a week later) showed no definitive vaginal injury.
- FBI child-forensic interviewer Catherine Connell recorded a detailed video interview in which KV described penetration, pain, and post-assault burning when urinating.
- JAS was charged in juvenile delinquency proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c); the district court held a bench trial under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 and found JAS guilty, sentencing him to three years’ detention (maximum juvenile term was five years).
- At trial the defense sought to impeach KV on collateral inconsistencies; the government offered Connell’s interview video, which the district court admitted over hearsay objections.
- JAS appealed, arguing (1) the interview video was inadmissible hearsay, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove penetration required by § 2241(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of interview video | Video admissible to rehabilitate witness under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(ii) and also satisfied Rule 807 | Video was hearsay and inadmissible as substantive evidence | Court affirmed admission: statements were consistent with testimony, offered after impeachment on another ground, and defendant cross-examined KV; thus admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(ii) |
| Sufficiency of evidence of penetration under § 2241(c) | KV’s trial testimony and out-of-court statements describing feeling the penis in her “private” and subsequent burning were adequate to prove penetration beyond a reasonable doubt | Defense argued evidence (including medical exam and expert testimony) was insufficient to show actual penetration | Court held evidence sufficient: KV’s statements described penetration and post-assault symptoms; medical absence of injury did not negate credibility or preclude penetration |
| Effect of medical examination showing no injury | Government: lack of visible injury is not inconsistent with penetration, especially given time lapse and possibility of slight penetration | Defense: expert opined full penile intercourse would likely cause significant hymenal injury, undermining penetration claim | Court: Expert conceded injuries can heal quickly and penetration can occur without identifiable injury; medical exam therefore did not refute KV’s account |
| Reliance on out-of-circuit precedents | Government: this case’s evidence (victim felt pain and penetration) differs materially from weaker out-of-circuit cases | Defense: cited cases where similar testimony was held insufficient | Court: Distinguished the cited cases and found them non-binding; here testimony supported penetration finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Carpenter, 819 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing district court evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. White Bull, 646 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 2011) (distinguished; victim was unable to recall where touching occurred)
- United States v. Reddest, 512 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2008) (distinguished; testimony described touching the exterior of the vagina)
- United States v. Plenty Arrows, 946 F.2d 62 (8th Cir. 1991) (distinguished; testimony described contact with the back/anal area)
- United States v. IMM, 747 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2014) (distinguished; eyewitness testimony left ambiguity between contact and actual penetration)
- Henricks v. Pickaway Corr. Inst., 782 F.3d 744 (6th Cir. 2015) (procedural point on forfeited arguments)