Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-03014/USCOURTS-ca10-88-03014-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth L. Stanley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United S~;:teil 0,)~rt ~•f Appeals 

.f end, Ci··~·.w 

FEB 1 4 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 88-3014 

KENNETH L. STANLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-165) 

Mark J. Rosenblum, Asst. Federal Public Defender (Michael G. Katz, 

Federal Public Defender, with him on the briefs) Denver, Colorado, 

for defendant-appellant. 

H. Lee Schmidt, Asst. U.S. Attorney (Michael J. Norton, U.S. 

Attorney, Catharine M. Goodwin, Asst. U.S. Attorney on the brief) 

Denver, Colorado, for plaintiff-appellee. 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

EBEL, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 88-3014 Document: 010110166081 Date Filed: 02/14/1990 Page: 1 
On August 30, 1988, defendant Kenneth L. Stanley was tried 

and convicted in the United States District Court for the District 

of Colorado of receiving child pornography through the mails in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). 1 On December 19, 1988, 

defendant was sentenced to a three-year term of probation. 

Defendant appealed that conviction directly to this court, and we 

now affirm. 

BACKGROUND 

After being discharged from the United States Navy while 

stationed in Japan, defendant mailed a box from Japan to himself 

.at his parents' address in Aurora, Colorado. The box contained 

approximately fifty-four magazines. On March 22, 1988, the box 

broke open in the San Francisco Bulk Mail center. A postal 

handler noticed the opened package and observed that the contents 

appeared to be child pornography. After the Postal Inspector was 

informed, a search warrant was obtained to inspect the contents of 

the package. Upon confirming that the magazines in the package 

depicted nude.children and children in sexually explicit poses, 

the box was packaged again and shipped to the Postal Inspector in 

Colorado. 

1 Although defendant was charged with two counts of violating 

18 u.s.c. § 2252(a), he was only convicted of one. Therefore, our 

discussion does not address facts relating to the count for which 

defendant was found not guilty. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-3014 Document: 010110166081 Date Filed: 02/14/1990 Page: 2 
( 

The package was received by Pat Carr, a Postal Inspector in 

Colorado. Inspector Carr examined the contents of the box. Carr 

then ordered that the box be packaged again and delivered to 

defendant at the address indicated on the box. The package was 

delivered under the supervision of postal agents and local police. 

A warrant to search for the box in defendant's parents' house was 

obtained and executed. While the warrant was being executed, 

defendant admitted to the agents that he bought the magazines in 

Japan and mailed them to himself at his parents' address. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Defendant "Received'' the Child Pornography Within the Meaning 

of the Statute. 

Defendant argues that the district court improperly denied 

his motion for acquittal after the jury returned its verdict 

because the jury verdict finding him guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2252(a)(2) was contrary to law. That section provides in 

relevant part: 

Any person who knowingly receives, or distributes any 

visual depiction that has been transported or shipped in 

interstate or foreign commerce by any means ... , if 

such visual depiction is of [a minor engaging in 

sexually explicit conduct]; shall be punished as 

provided in ... this section. 

18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). The trial judge 

instructed the jury that, for purposes of the statute, "receive'' 

means "to acquire control, in the sense of physical dominion or 

apparent legal power to dispose of the publication." R. III at 

94-95. 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-3014 Document: 010110166081 Date Filed: 02/14/1990 Page: 3 
Defendant does not challenge the jury instruction. Rather, 

defendant argues that the jury's verdict finding him guilty of 

"receiving" the materials depicting children engaging in sexually 

explicit conduct was contrary to law because he could not 

''receive" materials through the mail which he had mailed to 

himself. He contends that, by mailing the materials to himself, 

he never surrendered control over them such that he could later 

"receive" them within the meaning of the statute. We disagree. 

Here the defendant surrendered control over the materials 

when he gave them to the postal authorities and reacquired control 

when the materials were delivered to him at his parents' home and 

he again took possession of them. Cf. United States v. Davis, 461 

F.2d 83, 88 (5th Cir.), cert. denied~ 409 U.S. 921 (1972) 

(Holding that under the mail theft statute "postal matter remains 

in the custody or locus of the postal system, and continues to be 

'mail,' until such time as the material is returned to the sender 

or delivered to the address specified by the sender."). 

The Supreme Court has explained that criminal statutes are 

"subject to the basic consideration that legislation like all 

other writings should be given, insofar as the language permits, a 

commonsensical meaning." United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit 

Corp., 344 U.S. 218, 221 (1952). In this case, a common-sense 

understanding of the verb "to receive" is either "to take 

possession or delivery of" or "to have (something) given or sent 

t-0 one." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1894 

(1986); The Random House College Dictionary 1101 (Rev. Ed. 1980). 

The court's instrbction to the jury defining ''receive" was in 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-3014 Document: 010110166081 Date Filed: 02/14/1990 Page: 4 
accordance with the common-sense understanding of the term. 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

II. The Postal Inspector's Testimony Was Properly Admitted. 

At trial, United ·states Postal Inspector Pat Carr, testifying 

on behalf of the government, stated that he had specialized in the 

investigation of prohibited mailings such as child pornography 

since 1979. Over defense qounsel's objection, the·court allowed 

Inspector Carr to testify that, in his opinion, several of the 

children depicted in sexually explicit conduct were under the age 

of eighteen. R. III at 46-51. 

The government offered the testimony of Inspector Carr as 

lay opinion. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, lay opinion 

testimony "is limited to those opinions or inferences which are 

(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) 

helpful to a clear understanding ~f the witness' testimony or the 

determination of a fact in issue." Fed. R. Evid. 701. In this 

case, there is no question that Inspector Carr's testimony was 

based on his perceptions of the photographs because he viewed the 

photographs while testifying. R. III at 47-51. Therefore, the 

first requirement of Rule 701 was satisfied. 

However, defendant argues that the testimony concerning the 

ages of the persons in the photographs did not satisfy the second 

requirement because the pictures "spoke for themselves" and the 

jury was as able to judge the age of the persons depicted in the 

magazines as Inspector Carr. Defendant therefore concludes that 

the Inspector's testimony was not helpful to understanding his 

5 

Appellate Case: 88-3014 Document: 010110166081 Date Filed: 02/14/1990 Page: 5 
testimony nor to the determination of a fact at issue. We 

disagree. 

The government offered Inspector Carr's testimony as lay 

opinion testimony about the age of the subjects depicted in the 

photographs as well as to explain "the purpose of his seizing 

them. 11 R. III at 46-47. "The trial court has broad discretion to 

determine whether a lay witness is qualified under Rule 701 to 

testify_ on a matter of opinion." United States v. Borrelli, 621 

F.2d 1092, 1095 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 449 U.S. 956 (1980). 

We believe that Inspector Carr's testimony was helpful to the jury 

in det~rmining the age of the subjects. The age of the subjects 

was a fact in issue. Additionally, Inspector Carr's testimony 

was helpful as an explanation of why he ordered a supervised 

delivery, obtained a search warrant·, and seized the defendant's 

package. Because the materials containing the pictures were 

introduced ~s evidence for the jury to view, we can not say the 

district court abused its discretion in allowing Inspector Carr's 

testimony. III R. at 47, 127. 

The district court properly denied defendant's motion to 

acquit and correctly overruled defendant's objection to Inspector 

Carr's testimony. Therefore, the judgment of the district court 

is AFFIRMED. 2 

2 Although defendant was not sentenced under the Federal 

Sentencing Guidelines, the government does not appeal the 

defendant's sentence. 

6 

Appellate Case: 88-3014 Document: 010110166081 Date Filed: 02/14/1990 Page: 6