United States v. Jessyca Hoskins
876 F.3d 942
8th Cir.2017Background
- Victim (14) was sexually assaulted; Hoskins recorded the assault and distributed the video to others. State prosecutions resulted in convictions of the assaulters; Hoskins pled guilty in federal court to distribution of a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct (18 U.S.C. §2252).
- Victim’s mother reported psychological harm (nightmares, fear of being recorded) and submitted a victim impact statement documenting incurred and anticipated medical/therapy costs; invoices and a ledger supported some amounts.
- District court found documented losses of $11,895, credited $3,000 additional incurred but undocumented costs, and estimated at least $40,000 in future psychological/medical expenses, totaling $54,895.
- Applying Paroline principles, the district court determined some of the victim’s losses were proximately caused by Hoskins’ distribution and awarded $7,500 restitution to Hoskins.
- Hoskins appealed, arguing (1) the government failed to prove the amount of loss with reasonable certainty (particularly future medical costs), and (2) her distribution did not proximately cause the victim’s losses.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding the district court’s estimate of future expenses reasonable and that some losses were proximately caused by Hoskins’ distribution; review was abuse of discretion for restitution and clear-error for factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution amount was proven with reasonable certainty | Government: documented invoices and mother’s testimony supported incurred and future costs | Hoskins: no reliable expert for future therapy; $40,000 estimate was arbitrary | Court: estimate need only be reasonable; district court’s conservative estimate based on records/testimony not clearly erroneous; award upheld |
| Whether Hoskins’ conduct proximately caused victim’s losses | Government: distribution foreseeably contributed to victim’s trauma and treatment costs; distribution traceable to Hoskins | Hoskins: primary cause was the sexual assault by others; restitution cannot cover harms from the assault itself | Court: Paroline standard permits awarding restitution for losses proximately caused by defendant’s conduct; some losses uniquely traceable to Hoskins’ distribution; restitution appropriate |
| Applicability of Paroline causation framework | Government: Paroline’s proximate-cause guidance applies to restitution under §2259 | Hoskins: Paroline designed for mass-circulation possession cases; here traditional causation should apply | Court: Paroline’s principles on proximate cause apply; this case is simpler because but-for causation for distribution is demonstrable; Paroline instructive |
| Burden of proof and standard of review for restitution | Government: must prove amount by preponderance; district court has discretion | Hoskins: contends legal error and insufficient factual basis | Court: Government bears burden by preponderance; appellate review is abuse of discretion/clear-error; district court acted within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (supreme-court framework for proximate causation and apportionment under §2259)
- Manrique v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266 (2017) (timeliness/appeal of restitution orders)
- United States v. Carpenter, 841 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review and government burden for restitution findings)
- United States v. Funke, 846 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2017) (future therapy costs recoverable under §2259)
- United States v. Palmer, 643 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court may make reasonable estimates of future psychological damages)
- United States v. Emmert, 825 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2016) (reliance on victim/mother testimony and basic medical cost knowledge for incurred expenses)