United States v. Jade Oldrock
867 F.3d 934
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Victim H.L., a minor, awoke twice to find Jade Shilo Oldrock touching her genitals while she slept at her family home; she later reported the incidents and an interview at a children’s advocacy center led to indictment.
- Investigators separately interviewed another minor, T.O., who described a similar night-time touching by Oldrock.
- Oldrock moved to exclude T.O.’s testimony and most testimony from forensic interviewer Jill Perez; the court conditionally admitted T.O. and limited Perez’s testimony.
- At trial Perez answered one question beyond the limitation, stating recommendations given to H.L. (trauma counseling, no contact with Oldrock, and a medical exam); the court struck the answer and instructed the jury to disregard it.
- The jury convicted Oldrock of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and committing a felony sex offense as a registered sex offender; he appealed arguing improper admission of T.O. and Perez and that the court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Oldrock's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of T.O.’s testimony under Rule 413/104(b) | T.O.’s trial testimony conflicted with her forensic interview (thigh vs. genitals; multiple vs. single incidents), so it was not sufficiently proven and thus not relevant | Video and hearing supported a preponderance finding; inconsistencies affected credibility, not admissibility | Court affirmed admission: district court reasonably found the conditional facts by a preponderance and Rule 413 made the evidence probative |
| Rule 403 exclusion of T.O. (unfair prejudice) | Even if relevant, prior-act testimony was unduly prejudicial and should be excluded | Rule 413 permits propensity evidence in sex cases; probative similarities (age and touching while asleep) and jury instruction mitigated prejudice | Court held prejudice was not unfair; admission did not abuse discretion |
| Relevance and scope of Perez’s testimony (Rule 401/701 vs. 702) | Perez’s statements exceeded lay opinion and amounted to expert testimony or irrelevant commentary about the investigative process | Perez testified about the interview process and her perceptions based on experience—background evidence helpful to jury; court limited expert testimony | Court affirmed: Perez’s testimony met the low relevancy standard and was permissible lay opinion based on experience |
| Vouching and mistrial based on Perez’s struck recommendation statement | The statement impermissibly vouched for H.L.’s credibility and accused Oldrock, creating incurable prejudice that required mistrial | The statement was innocuous background (typical recommendations) and was promptly struck; a curative instruction was adequate | Court denied mistrial: striking and instruction cured prejudice; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Never Misses A Shot, 781 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2015) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Hollow Horn, 523 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 413 permits propensity evidence in sex-offense prosecutions)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1988) (standard for conditional relevance under Rule 104(b))
- United States v. Armstrong, 782 F.3d 1028 (8th Cir. 2015) (applying Rule 104(b) and assessing preponderance showing)
- United States v. Strong, 826 F.3d 1109 (8th Cir. 2016) (Rule 403 analysis for Rule 413 evidence; prejudice vs. probative value)
- United States v. Smith, 591 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2010) (forensic interviewer may offer lay opinion based on personal perception and experience)
- United States v. Espinosa, 585 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard and deference on mistrial motions; curative instructions ordinarily sufficient)