United States v. Kevin Sheldon
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6509
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendant Kevin Michael Sheldon lived with family in Montana and was told to move out after inappropriately touching a minor. Shortly after, a family video recorder was found to contain videos of children nude and simulating sexual acts. Police seized the defendant’s computer and external hard drive, which contained 41 images of child pornography.
- Two minor female victims testified that Sheldon showed them internet pornography, asked them to make videos of themselves undressed, and they recorded several videos repeating sexual references.
- Sheldon was charged with sexual exploitation of a child (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)) and knowingly receiving child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)). He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 480 months’ imprisonment.
- The government conceded Sheldon never saw the videos made by the minor children; those videos were not on his seized devices.
- At trial the government introduced testimony that the video recorder used to produce some videos was manufactured in China; the court also admitted evidence of Sheldon’s 1998 conviction for possession of child pornography under Fed. R. Evid. 414.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2251(a) requires knowledge that materials used to produce images traveled in interstate commerce | Gov't: jurisdictional hook satisfied if materials had traveled in interstate commerce; knowledge requirement applies only where statute says so | Sheldon: government must prove he knew the materials had traveled in interstate commerce | The statute does not require knowledge of interstate travel; knowledge language applies only to the first jurisdictional clause |
| Admissibility of prior conviction (1998 possession of child pornography) | Gov't: admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 414 for propensity in child-molestation cases | Sheldon: admission was an abuse of discretion and unduly prejudicial | Admission proper; court balanced Lemay factors and Rule 403; only sanitized conviction record shown |
| Sufficiency of evidence that videos were "sexually explicit" under § 2251(a) | Gov't: videos depict nudity and sexual discussion, fitting statutory definition of sexually explicit conduct | Sheldon: videos not sexually explicit, so conviction insufficient | Evidence sufficient; a rational jury could find lascivious exhibition and sexually explicit conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dahl, 314 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
- In re Pacific-Atlantic Trading Co., 64 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing disjunctive subsections as distinct alternatives)
- United States v. Terrell, 700 F.3d 755 (5th Cir. 2012) (holding § 2251(a) does not require knowledge of interstate nexus)
- United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2006) (same interpretation of § 2251(a))
- United States v. Lemay, 260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) (factors for admitting prior acts under Rule 414/403)
- United States v. Garrido, 713 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2013) (sufficiency standard citation applying Jackson review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- United States v. Overton, 573 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2009) (analysis of what constitutes sexually explicit/lascivious conduct)