Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): by an erroneous view of the law.” United States v. Henry, 53 M.J. 108, 110 (C.A.A.F.2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In applying the Reynolds test, the content of the chats survives the first required finding. Forensic evidence offered at trial from the appellant’s computer established that he engaged in these conversations. Further, both his admissions to NCIS and the testimony of his wife at trial also established that he used the same online profile name. PE 14 at 1; Record at 261. Next is the issue of logical relevance. These chats display the appellant’s clear sexual interest in children and desire to trade related images. They are relevant to prove intent and motive for the charged offenses. See United States v. Chambers, 642 F.3d 588, 595 (7th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). However, in balancing the prejudice of these 
 Holding statements: (A) holding evidence of outofstate instances of abuse admissible in child sexual abuse case to show intent opportunity and relationship between defendant and victim (B) holding chat transcripts between defendant and undercover police officers posing as minors where defendant boasted of past sexual intercourse with 14yearold were relevant to show intent and motive toward charged offenses of attempted enticement of a minor and child pornography (C) holding child could bring action for enticement of parent (D) holding trial court improperly instructed jury in trial for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute that evidence of defendants similar acts of possession was admissible to show motive where motive was not element of crime charged and defendant did not contest motive (E) holding evidence of past uncharged sexual encounters admissible in child sexual abuse case to show relationship between defendant and alleged victim
Output (English): holding child could bring action for enticement of parent