37 F.4th 489
8th Cir.2022Background
- Victim A.S., age 12 at trial, reported that Dowty (her cousin) sexually assaulted her during summer 2018; she also testified that Dowty had previously touched her vagina over clothing when she was about 7–8.
- A.S. made a report to an Indian Health Service nurse prompting an FBI investigation; photographs from a search and a forensic interview were admitted at trial.
- Two women (Williams and Lund) testified about being sexually abused by Dowty as children; the district court admitted those prior-act testimonies under Fed. R. Evid. 414.
- Dowty testified and denied the allegations, offering an alibi (living in California) and physical limitations from a recent knee surgery; the district judge admonished gallery members for visible conduct during trial.
- A jury convicted Dowty of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor (18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 1153); the court applied a five-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) and imposed a life sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prior-child-molestation testimony (Rule 414) | Government: testimony admissible because offenses were substantially similar by method and victim age and not unduly prejudicial | Dowty: prior acts too dissimilar, too remote, and unfairly prejudicial | Admitted under Rule 414; probative similarity and remoteness not dispositive; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Exclusion of Mousseaux opinion (witness belief about A.S.) | Government: Mousseaux's conclusory disbelief lacked foundation and did not bear on A.S.’s character for truthfulness | Dowty: should be allowed to show Mousseaux told doctor she didn’t believe the assault to attack credibility | Exclusion proper under Rule 608(a); opinion was conclusory and trial court acted within discretion |
| Gallery behavior (possible juror influence) | Government: judge’s prompt admonition cured any potential influence; no evidence jurors were affected | Dowty: gallery conduct influenced jury and denied fair trial | Reviewed for plain error; no plain error shown—no indication jurors were influenced and defendant’s rights not affected |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Government: A.S.’s testimony plus investigative and forensic-interview evidence sufficient for conviction | Dowty: evidence insufficient; testimony unreliable | Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to verdict, testimony (including victim’s) and supporting evidence were sufficient |
| Sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) | Government: enhancement valid—pattern requires two separate occasions by preponderance; conviction not required | Dowty: enhancement improper because alleged prior act lacked conviction and jury finding | Court applied enhancement by preponderance of evidence; commentary permits nonconviction prior acts; district court’s application upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gabe, 237 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2001) (Rule 414 admissibility and remoteness discussion)
- United States v. Crow Eagle, 705 F.3d 325 (8th Cir. 2013) (probative value when method of contact and victim age are similar)
- United States v. Turning Bear, 357 F.3d 730 (8th Cir. 2004) (limits on opinion testimony about a witness’s truthfulness)
- United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (plain-error review standard when no trial objection)
- United States v. Fast Horse, 747 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2014) (plain-error framework and reversal considerations)
- United States v. DeCoteau, 630 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 2011) (victim’s testimony alone can support aggravated sexual abuse conviction)
- United States v. Scott, 448 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2006) (sentence-enhancing facts found by judge by preponderance)
- United States v. Davidson, 449 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)