United States v. Sturm
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5566
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Sturm challenged convictions under 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(5)(B) and (a)(2)(B) for possession and receipt of child pornography.
- He argued jury instructions were improper and the court erred admitting a prior Ohio conviction under Rule 414.
- The government traced online activity to Sturm: paid $79.99 for a one-month subscription and accessed about 6,500 images.
- A search of Sturm's home produced a hard drive with many child-pornography images.
- Sturm did not dispute viewing or searching for child pornography at the time; trial lasted nine days with guilty verdicts on both counts.
- The court held multiple issues: no need for intent to distribute for receipt; Ohio conviction admissible under Rule 414; and no double jeopardy in convicting on both possession and receipt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether receipt requires intent to distribute | Sturm argued receipt requires intent to distribute. | Sturm urged a scrivener’s error and distinctions implying intent to distribute. | Receipt conviction does not require intent to distribute. |
| Admissibility of Ohio conviction under Rule 414 | Sturm challenged whether Ohio crime qualifies as an offense of child molestation. | Sturm argued broader state offense may exceed Rule 414 scope. | Ohio conviction admissible under Rule 414; district court did not abuse Enjady factors. |
| Interstate commerce requirement for Rule 414 prior acts | Sturm argued future 414 analysis should require interstate element tied to prior acts. | Interstate element not necessary for Rule 414 purposes. | Interstate commerce requirement is jurisdictional, not a 'conduct' element for Rule 414; admissibility proper. |
| Double Jeopardy for possession and receipt | Sturm claimed two convictions for one act violated Blockburger. | Different dates and statutes entailed distinct conduct; not the same offense. | No double jeopardy; two distinct acts and offenses supported by evidence. |
| Interstate-commerce instruction sufficiency | Sturm contended jury instruction failed to require image-level interstate movement. | Instruction previously upheld; no error in specifying interstate movement. | No error; instruction consistent with applicable law. |
Key Cases Cited
- X-Citement Video, Inc. v. United States, 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (extends 'knowingly' to age/content of material in child pornography)
- Enjady v. Meacham, 134 F.3d 1427 (10th Cir. 1998) (Rule 403 balancing for Rule 414 evidence)
- Benally v. United States, 500 F.3d 1085 (10th Cir. 2007) (propensity evidence limits under Rule 404/414)
- Batton v. United States, 602 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2010) (enjoys flexible application of Rule 414/403 in prior acts)
- Fabiano v. United States, 169 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 1999) (plain-error review for jury instruction sufficiency)
- Davenport v. United States, 519 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2008) (discusses causation of receipt vs. possession in conspiracy context)