United States v. Robert Carey Evans
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16624
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- In Nov. 2012 law enforcement executed a warrant at Robert Evans’s Fargo apartment and forensically examined 56 media devices, recovering >23,000 images and ~1,300 videos of child pornography. Evans was tried and convicted on 14 counts of possession of child pornography; transportation charge was dismissed.
- Evans stipulated that his devices contained child pornography but objected at trial to the government showing 14 images and 22 video clips (36 items) to the jury, seeking a limit of 3 images for ~10 seconds each. The district court admitted the 36 items.
- The government sought to admit written stories found on Evans’s drives depicting sexual acts between adults and children; the court initially denied the motion as propensity evidence but later admitted some story evidence after finding Evans had "opened the door" by asserting a virus defense.
- Evans testified he lacked knowledge of the illicit files and blamed a possible computer virus; prosecution emphasized organization of files, altered filenames, Evans’s computer expertise, and that he lived alone.
- Victim restitution: one victim (“Vicky”) sought restitution under the MVRA. Parties agreed on total victim loss amount but disputed Evans’s relative share; the district court awarded $3,250.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: (1) admission of the images/videos; (2) any error admitting story-evidence was harmless; and (3) the restitution award under Paroline was within the district court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov.) | Defendant's Argument (Evans) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 14 images and 22 video clips under Fed. R. Evid. 403 | Showing representative images/videos was probative to confirm mislabeled files and show content despite stipulation | Publication was cumulative, emotionally prejudicial, unnecessary given Evans’s stipulation; requested severe limits | Affirmed; district court conducted Rule 403 balancing and admission was not unfairly prejudicial; no preliminary showing of unfair prejudice made |
| Admission of written stories found on drives (propensity vs. non‑propensity) | Stories were relevant to identity, absence of mistake, and tied into organized file structure; admissible after Evans opened the door | Stories were propensity evidence showing prurient interest; even if organized with other materials, stories do not prove knowledge; should be excluded | Mixed: district court erred to the extent stories were pure propensity evidence, but any error was harmless because testimony about stories was brief, titles only, not read to jury, and ample other evidence supported conviction |
| Restitution amount under MVRA/Paroline | District court should use Paroline factors to set an amount reflecting Evans’s relative role; sought $5,000 | Evans urged a minimal amount (e.g., $600) given his relative role and Paroline factors | Affirmed; district court considered Paroline factors (harm, prior awards, # of Vicky images Evans possessed, relative culpability) and reasonably set $3,250 within its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McCourt, 468 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir.) (district court need not produce lengthy Rule 403 analysis on the record for admission to be reviewed as non‑abusive)
- United States v. Worthey, 716 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir.) (publication of child pornography to jury may be affirmed where representative and not shown to cause unfair prejudice)
- United States v. Becht, 267 F.3d 767 (8th Cir.) (affirming admission of numerous child‑pornography images and clips)
- United States v. Johnson, 439 F.3d 884 (8th Cir.) (similar‑acts/propensity evidence analysis)
- United States v. Battle, 774 F.3d 504 (8th Cir.) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Worman, 622 F.3d 969 (8th Cir.) (harmless‑error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (U.S.) (district courts to use non‑mechanical Paroline factors to set restitution under §2259)
- United States v. Allison, 772 F.3d 554 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for restitution: abuse of discretion; MVRA interpretations reviewed de novo)