United States v. Sweet, 107 F.4th 944

Alexander Sweet, age 26, initiated contact and developed a sexual relationship with M.L.C., a minor, involving online and in-person interactions, including the creation and sharing of child pornography.
Sweet was convicted by a jury on seven counts, including coercion and enticement of a minor, multiple counts of production of child pornography, and related offenses; sentenced to life plus concurrent terms on other counts.
Sweet appealed, raising four main issues: the sufficiency of the indictment for the enticement charge, an alleged violation regarding jury instructions on “grooming,” alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and a claim of cumulative error requiring a new trial.
The Government presented a broad theory for the enticement charge, including a previously undisclosed allegation of lewd molestation, first introduced at trial.
The trial featured strong direct and corroborated evidence, including testimony from the victim and digital evidence; Sweet argued lack of notice and prejudice by the surprise lewd molestation evidence.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the indictment de novo and plain error for prosecutorial misconduct; the conviction and all challenged rulings were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Enticement Indictment	Indictment failed to specify underlying “sexual activity” (lewd molestation), prejudicing ability to defend.	Mere statutory language suffices; multiple other acts were given notice; no requirement for specifics.	Indictment sufficient; no prejudice; conviction affirmed.
Prosecutorial Misconduct (Closings)	Improper comments during closing arguments—penalizing exercise of Sixth Amendment rights and improper character attacks.	Defense opened door on victim-blaming; comments responded to defense, not plainly improper or prejudicial.	No plain error; comments not improper in context; no substantial prejudice.
Cumulative Error Doctrine	Combined effect of errors warrants new trial.	No individual or cumulative error established.	No cumulative error; doctrine does not apply.
Jury Instruction on “Grooming”	District court erred by defining grooming; issue foreclosed by recent precedent.	Precedent makes this argument meritless.	Not considered—issue conceded and foreclosed by controlling precedent.

Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974) (an indictment tracking statutory language is generally sufficient to inform defendant of the charges)
Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962) (failure to specify core facts in indictment can render it insufficient; applies where statutory language alone is not enough)
United States v. Powell, 767 F.3d 1026 (10th Cir. 2014) (indictment sufficient if it tracks statute and gives date, place, and nature of activity)
United States v. Isabella, 918 F.3d 816 (10th Cir. 2019) (core criminality under § 2422(b) is the attempt to persuade, not the act itself)
United States v. Kay, 359 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2004) (indictment parroting statute sufficient unless omitted facts go to the core of the crime)
United States v. Lopez-Medina, 596 F.3d 716 (10th Cir. 2010) (cumulative error analysis aggregates only established errors)