## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t29,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 4173 RE O B E NAL L Y,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF UT AH ( D . C . N O . 2: 06 - C R - 38 1- TS) D e ird re A . G o rm a n , O g d e n , U tah , fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. K ar i n M . Foj t i k, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , ( B r et tL . T ol m an, U ni t ed St at es A t t or neyw i t h heron t he br i ef) , Sal tL ake Ci ty , U t ah, forPl ai nt i ffA ppel l ee. B efo re M UR P HY , Mc WI L L I A MS , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. M UR P HY , C i r cui tJ udge. I . I nt roduct i on D efe ndant - A ppel l antR eo B enal l yw as convi ct ed bya j ur yof one c ountof aggr avat ed s exual abus e of a m i norundert he age of s i xt een w hi l e i n I ndi an-2-

C ount r y , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2241( c) and § 1153( a) . B enal l yw as s ent ence d t o 324 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entt o be fol l ow ed byfi ve y ear s ’ s upervi s ed re lea se . B e n a llya p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n , arg u in g th e d istric t co u rt im p ro p e rly admi t t ed the t es t i m onyof fourw i tnes s es r egar di ng B enal l y ’ s pr i oract s of s exual as s aul t . T hi s courtt akes j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e conc l ude t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on byadmi t t i ng the evi dence and affi rm B e n a lly’s c o n v ic tio n . I I . Backg r ound T he eve nt s gi vi ng r i s e t o the cha r ged conduc toccurr ed w hi l e B enal l yw as ac ti n g as g u ard ian to h is tw elve y ea r old g ran d d au g h ter, N . W . N . W . ’s m o ther, R o w en a A . , h ad left N . W . an d h er tw o sist ers, S.A . an d K . W . , ag es six an d fo u r, re s p e c tiv e ly, in th e c a re o f B e n a lly w h ile R o w e n a w a s liv in g in P h o e n ix , A ri z o n a . B e n a llya lso h a d c u sto d yo f tw o o f h is n a tu ra l ch ild re n , J.B .1 , a n in e -y e a r o ld boy , and J . B . 2, a s i x- y earol d gi r l . O n A ugus t23, 2003, B enal l yt ook al l fi ve c h ild re n sw im m in g a t a r iv e r n e a r th e fa m ilysh e e p fa rm o n th e N a v ajo r es ervat i on i n W hi t e M es a, U t ah. T he gr oup s pentt he ni ghti n the fa m i l y ’ s oner oom hogan. A ccor di ng t o N . W . ’ s t es t i m onyatt r i al , N . W . and hers i s t er s w er e s har i ng a bed, J . B . 1 and J . B . 2 s l epton a s epar at e bed, and B enal l ys l epton a couc h betw een th e tw o b e d s. A t so m e p o in t d u rin g th e n ig h t, N .W . w o k e u p to fin d B e n a lly naked a nd hol di ng a kni fe t o herneck. N . W . t es t i fi ed B enal l ys ai d he w oul d cut-3-

heri f s he r es i s t ed hi m . She cl ai m ed t o have pus hed B enal l yaw ayw i th herl egs a n d to h a v e g ra b b e d th e k n ife a n d th ro w n it ac ro ss th e ro o m . N .W . sa id B e n a lly th e n c h o k e d h e r a n d a ttem p ted to re m o v e h e r f ro m th e h o g a n b yp u lli n g h e r h a ir and dr aggi ng hert ow ar ds t he door . She cl ai m ed thatatl eas ts om e of the other chi l dr en w er e aw ake a nd cry i ng. N . W . t es t i fi ed s he l os tcons ci ous nes s fr om bei ng choked, butt hatw hen s he r egai ned cons ci ous nes s , s he w as back on the bed, hercl ot hi ng had bee n r emoved, and B enal l yw as appl y i ng l ot i on t o and rubbi ng h e rg e n i t a l s w i t h h i s fi n g e r s a n d p e n i s a n d k i s s i n g h e rl e g s a n d b r e a s t s . N . W. as s er t ed B enal l yeventual l ys t opped, puthi s cl othes on, gr abbed hi s carkey s , and said h e w as g o ing to co m m itsu ici d e. S h e sa id h e g av e h er tw en ty -tw o d o ll ars a n d a sk e d h e r n o t to d isc lo se th e e v e n ts th a t h a d tra n sp ire d . B e n a llyu lti m a tely d id n o t lea v e b e c a u se J.B .1 a sk e d h im to sta yto d riv e J.B .1 a n d J.B .2 b a c k to th e ir b o a rd in g sc h o o l. T he othery oung chi l dr en pr es entdur i ng the al l eged a s s aul tal s o t es t i fi ed at t r i al . N one had a verydet ai l ed r ecol l ect i on of the i nci dent , w hi ch occ ur r ed a lm o st th re e y e a rs e a rlier , b u t m o st re m e m b e re d e ith e r se e in g B e n a llyw ith o u t h is cl ot hes on t op of N . W . ors ai d B enal l yw as nextt o N . W . on the bed. Sever al i ndi cat ed theyw er e s car ed orcry i ng orhear d N . W . cry i ng ors cr eami ng. T he te s tim o n yo f

J .B .1 , th e o ld e s t c h ild a m o n g th e g ro u p o th e r t h a n N .W ., c o rr o b o ra te d N .W .’s te s tim o n ya s to B e n a lly’s u s e o f a k n ife in th re a te n in g N .W ., butJ . B . 1’ s t es t i m onyw as t hatB enal l yputthe kni fe a w ayw hen he gotoff of-4-

N . W . and puton hi s cl ot hes . J . B . 1 al s o corr obor at ed N . W . ’ s as s ert i on that B e n a llyg a v e h e r m o n e ya t th e e n d o f th e in c id e n t. N . W . t es t i fi ed that , aft erB enal l ygotoff of her , s he w entout s i de w i th her s i s t er s , butw hen i ts t art ed s pr i nkl i ng, B enal l yt ol d hert o come back i ns i de and go t o s l eep. T he nextday , B enal l yt ook al l the chi l dr en bac k t o hi s hous e i n T eec N os Pos, A r i zona. A ft err etur ni ng t o B enal l y ’ s hom e, N . W . t ol d herfi ft een y ear o ld n e ig h b o r a n d f

rie n d th a t h e r g ra n d fa th e r h a d a lm o st ra p e d h e r, b u t as k e d h im nott o t el l any one. A few day s l at er , s he t ol d anothernei ghbor , G eor gi nda Pi er ce, that B en all yh ad alm o st r ap ed h er a n d rep ea ted th e sa m e a ll eg ati o n s to P ierce’s m o t h e r , L u c i n d a P i e r c e . L u c i n d a P i e r c e c a l l e d N . W. ’ s m o th e r , R o w e n a . N . W. and hers i s t er s w er e then t aken t o C hi l d H aven, a chi l d w el far e age ncy , and then s entt o l i ve w i t h V i r gi ni a S. , B enal l y ’ s s i s t er . N . W . admi t t ed s he di d notr evea l al l of the det ai l s of the enc ount ert o the fi r s tdoct ors he s poke w i th beca us e he w as a mal e and s he di d notfee l comfort abl e t al ki ng t o hi m . She al s o admi t t ed s he om i t t ed det ai l s w hen i ni t i al l yi nt ervi ew ed bydefe ns e i nves t i gat or s beca us e other c h ild re n w e re p re s e n t. Phy s i cal exami nat i ons of N . W . di d notr evea l evi dence i ndi cat i ve of the a lle g e d a s s a u lt. G eo rgin d a P ierce testi fied that, at th e ti m e N . W . related the s tory t o her , s he di d nots ee a nybrui s i ng on N . W . ’ s neck. N . W . her s el f admi t t ed s he d id n o t su sta in a n yc u ts e v e n th o u g h sh e h a d g ra b b e d th e k n ife b lad e w ith b o th h a n d s. A n u rse a t C h ild H a v e n w h o sa w N .W . af ter N .W . rep o rte d th e in c id e n t to-5-

Pi er ce di d noti ndi cat e on an i nt ake for m thatN . W . had anybrui s es orother i nj ur i es . T hi r t een da y s aft ert he i nci dent , the I ndi an H eal th Ser vi ce doc t orw ho exami ned N . W . di d nots ee a nym arks orbrui s i ng on N . W . ’ s body . A nur s e w ho exami ned N . W . aboutfi ve w eeks aft erthe i nci dentfound no phy s i cal evi dence of t he att ack N . W . des cr i bed buts ai d thati n m os tcas es , ther e w oul d be no evi dence o f d ig ita l p e n e tr a tio n o f fe m a le g e n ita lia . T h e re w a s a lso tes tim o n ya t trial a b o u t N .W .’s p ro p e n sityfo r tru th f u ln e ss : N .W .’s u n c le a n d B e n a lly ’s s o n , S tan fo rd B e n a lly , tes tifie d N .W . h a d liv e d w ith hi m fort w o y ear s w hen s he w as abouts even y ear s ol d, fi ve y ear s befor e the al l eged a s s aul t , and w as oft en untruthful . V i r gi ni a S. , w ho had her s el f bee n r aped byB enal l yas a chi l d, t es t i fi ed N . W . l i ved w i th herdur i ng the s chool y ear fol l ow i ng t he al l eged a s s aul tand s ai d N . W . “s om et i m es ” t ol d l i es . She agr eed t hat , i f N . W . s ai d s om ethi ng, one coul d not know i f i t w as true. T he nur s e at C h il d H av en w h o ex am ined N . W . af ter th e inc iden t kn ew N . W . fro m N . W . ’s m u ltip le s ta y s a t th e a g e n c ya n d te s tifie d N .W . w a s n o t h o n e s t m o s t o f th e tim e . A not herC hi l d H aven e m pl oy ee i ndi cat ed N . W . “l i es and s t eal s ” and w as di s hones t . A s oci al w or kerfr om t he s chool N . W . att ended dur i ng the s chool y ear pr ece di ng t he i nci dent , how ever , t es t i fi ed thatN . W . w as “pr et tyhones t ” and “[t ook] r es pons i bi l i t yforheract i ons . ” The defe ns e al s o hi ghl i ght ed i ncons i s t enci es i n N . W . ’ s acc ountof the i nci dent , br i ngi ng outt he di ffe r ence s-6-

betw een the s t or ys he t ol d t he doct orw ho i ni t i al l yexami ned her , the nur s e w ho e x a m in e d h e r fiv e w e e k s a f ter th e a lleg e d a ss a u lt, a n d N .W .’s te stim o n ya t trial. F in a lly , ev id e n c e o f

fo u r o f B e n a lly ’s o th e r se x u a l as sa u lt an d c h ild m o le s ta tio n c ri m e s w a s a d m itte d u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le s o f E v id e n c e 4 1 3 a n d 4 1 4 . T h e a d m issi o n o f th is ev iden ce is th e so le i ssu e o n ap p ea l. R u li n g o n B en all y ’s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude the pr i or - cr i m es evi dence , the courtadmi t t ed evi dence of thr ee of

B enal l y ’ s pr i oroffe ns es w i thoutan evi dent i aryhear i ng beca us e ea ch had r es ul t ed i n a convi ct i on and the courtdet erm i ned thei rpr obat i ve val ue w as nots ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed bya dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce, pur s uant t o R ul e 403. T he courtal s o ul t i m at el yadmi t t ed evi dence of a four th i nci dent i nvol vi ng t he r ape of

R ow ena, B enal l y ’ s daught erand N . W . ’ s m other , aft er h o l d i n g a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g a n d c o n c l u d i n g a j u ry c o u l d fi n d b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e th a t th e ra p e o c c u rre d a n d th a t th e e v id e n c e sh o u ld notbe exc l uded underR ul e 403. In bri ef, t he fo ur i ncident s t est i fi ed to w ere as foll ow s: B et t yR . t es t i fi ed thatB enal l y ’ s s i s t erw as m arr i ed t o herbr other . She sta ted th a t w h e n sh e w a s a b o u t tw e n tyy e a rs o ld , ab o u t fo rtyy e a rs e a rlier , B e n a lly came t o herhous e w hen s he w as hom e al one baby s i t t i ng, chas ed heri nt o a s heep c o rra l ab o u t a h a lf

a m ile f ro m h e r h o m e , p u sh e d h e r a n d h e ld h e r d o w n , h it h e r in t he ey e and on the che ek, and had s exual i nt er cour s e w i th her . B enal l yw as-7-

char ged w i t h r ape, butpl eade d gui l tyt o as s aul tand batt ery . T he r ape c har ge w as di s m i s s ed. S a ra h J . te s tifie d B e n a lly w a s o n c e m a rr ie d to h e r o ld e r s is te r’ s d a u g h te r. She i ndi cat ed that , w hen s he w as t hi r t een, oraboutfor tyy ear s pr i ort o the curr ent t r i al , B enal l ycame t o herhom e, thr ew heron the fl oor , and had for ci bl e s exual i nt er cour s e w i t h her . B enal l ypl eade d gui l tyt o r ape. V i r gi ni a, B enal l y ’ s s i s t er , t es t i fi ed that , w hen s he w as t hi r t een orfour t een, sh e liv e d a t th e sh e e p c a m p w ith h e r m o th e r. A f ter a d ru n k e n B e n a llya n d th e ir m o th e r a rg u e d , V ir g in ia le f t th e fa m ily h o m e a n d ra n to w a rd a n e a rb yh ill. B enal l yfol l ow ed V i r gi ni a dow n the hi l l , s t abbed he ri n the arm w i th a ca n opener , and pus hed herback up the hi l l and i nt o hi s t ruck. H e dr ove a mi l e or t w o, putheri n t he bac k of the truck and ha d s exual i nt er cour s e w i th her . H er m o th e r c a m e to re triev e h e r a n d to o k h e r to a h o sp ital w h e re sh e sp o k e w ith p o li ce . B en all yw as u lt im atelyco n v ict ed b ya juryo f ra p ing h is si ster. R o w e n a , N .W .’s m o th e r a n d B e n a lly ’s d a u g h ter , tes tifie d th a t B e n a lly ra p e d h e r w h e n sh e w a s a p p ro x im a telyten o r tw e lv e y e a rs o ld , n in e tee n to t w enty - one y ear s befor e the al l eged i nci denti nvol vi ng N . W . B enal l yhad pi cked u p R o w e n a a n d h e r b ro th e r, S tan fo rd , fr o m sc h o o l o n a F rid a y . H e to o k th e m to th e s h e e p c a m p a n d h o g a n in w h ic h th e a lle g e d a s s a u lt a g a in s t N .W . o c c u rr e d . B e n a lly h a d b e e n d ri n k in g a n d a s k e d R o w e n a if s h e w o u ld h a v e s e x w ith h im . R ow ena tr i ed t o es cape t o hergr andmot her ’ s hous e nextdoorbyas ki ng i f s he-8-

coul d go out s i de t o t he bathr oom , butB enal l yacc om pani ed herout s i de. W hen R ow ena a nd B enal l yr e- ent er ed the hogan, B enal l yi ns truct ed R ow ena t o l i e on hi s bed and ha d s exual i nt er cour s e w i th her . R ow ena t es t i fi ed s he t ol d her g ra n d m o th e r a n d ste p m o th e r a b o u t th e in c id e n t, bu t th a t n e ith e r d id a n yth in g to h e lp h e r. S h e in d ic a te d h e r b ro th e r, S ta n fo rd , h a d b e e n p re s e n t d u ri n g th e ra p e . L at eri n t he tr i al , St anfor d corr obor at ed R ow ena’ s t es t i m ony . N o cr i m i nal char ges w er e eve rfi l ed. T he di s t r i ctcour tt w i ce ga ve ca ut i onaryj ur yi ns truct i ons t o m i t i gat e the pr ej udi ci al i m pactof the R ul e 413/ 414 evi dence . B efor e the t es t i m onyr egar di ng th e p rio r in c id e n ts b e g a n , the c o u rt in stru c ted th e ju rya s fo llo w s:

M em b ers o f th e jury , I w an t t o g ive y o u a c au ti o n ary in stru c tio n n o w b e c a u se w e a re a b o u t to h e a r so m e e v id e n c e w ith th is w i t nes s and tw o w i t nes s es thatw i l l fol l ow aft erher , s om e evi dence of the defendant ’ s comm i s s i on of anotheroffe ns e oroffe ns es of s exual as s aul torchi l d m ol es t at i on. I n a cr i m i nal cas e i n w hi ch the defendanti s acc us ed of a n offe ns e of s exual as s aul torchi l d m ol es t at i on, evi dence of the defe ndant ’ s comm i s s i on of anotheroffe ns e oroffe ns es of s exual as s aul torchi l d m ol es t at i on i s admi s s i bl e and maybe cons i der ed for i t s bear i ng on anym att ert o w hi ch i ti s r el evant . H ow ever , evi dence of a pr i oroffe ns e on i t s ow n i s nots uffi ci entt o pr ove the defendant gui l t yof the cr i m e cha r ged i n the i ndi ctm ent . B eari n m i nd as y ou cons i dert hi s evi dence , atal l t i m es the governm enthas the bur den of pr ovi ng t hatt he defendantcomm i t t ed ea ch of the el ement s of the o ffe n se c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t. I rem in d y o u th a t th e d e fe n d a n t is noton t r i al foranyact , conductoroffe ns e notchar ged i n the in d ictm e n t.-9-

B efo re the juryb eg an d eli b era ti n g , the c o u rtag ain c au ti o n ed the ju ry a g a i n s ti m p r o p e ru s e o f t h e R u l e 4 1 3 / 4 1 4 e v i d e n c e , i n s tru c t i n g th e j u ry, I n a cr i m i nal cas e i n w hi ch the defendanti s acc us ed of a n offe ns e of s exual as s aul torchi l d m ol es t at i on, evi dence of the defe ndant ’ s comm i s s i on of anotheroffe ns e oroffe ns es of s exual as s aul torchi l d m ol es t at i on i s admi s s i bl e and maybe cons i der ed for its b e a rin g o n a n ym a tter to w h ich it i s re lev a n t. H ow ever , evi dence of a pr i oroffe ns e on i t s ow n i s not s uffi ci entt o pr ove the defendantgui l tyof the cr i m e cha r ged i n the Indi ct m ent. B ear i n m i nd as y ou con si der this evidence at al l t i m es, t he governm enthas t he bur den of pr ovi ng t hatthe defendant comm i t t ed ea ch of the el ement s of the offens e cha r ged i n the In d ictm e n t. I rem in d y o u th a t th e d e fe n d a n t is n o t o n trial fo r a n ya c t, co n d u c t, or o ffe n se n o t ch a rg e d in th e In d ictm e n t. O n a p p e a l, B e n a llyc o n ten d s th e d istric t co u rt e rro n e o u slyc o n c lu d e d in its R ul e 403 ana l y s i s t hatt he pr obat i ve val ue of the R ul e 413/ 414 evi dence w as not s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed byt he dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce. B enal l yar gues the pr i oract s have l i t t l e pr obat i ve val ue bec aus e theyar e di s s i m i l arfr om the al l eged a ss a u lt i n v o lv in g N .W ., h a p p e n e d to o lo n g a g o , an d w e re in f re q u e n t. B e n a lly al s o ar gues t he pr i ori nci dent s al l occurr ed w hen he w as an al cohol i c and thathe no l ongerdr i nks . Fi nal l y , B enal l ycl ai m s the R ul e 413/ 414 evi dence w as u n n ec essa ry . B en all yco n tend s the ad m issi o n o f th e e v iden ce p rejud iced the ju ry and am ou nted t o err or that w as not harm l ess. I I I . D i s cus s i on T hi s cour tr evi ew s a di s t r i ctcourt ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ngs foran abus e of d is c re tio n . Uni t ed Stat es v. St iger , 4 1 3 F .3 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 9 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A“C hi l d” i s defi ned as a “pe r s on bel ow t he age of fourt een” fort he purpos es 1 o f R u le 4 1 4 . See Fed. R . E vi d. 414( d) . E vi dence of ce r t ai n s exual act s i nvol vi ng a c h ild m a yb e a d m itte d u n d e r e ith e r R u le 4 1 3 o r R u le 4 1 4 . See i d. 4 1 3 (c ); i d. 414( c) . B eca us e N . W . w as t w el ve y ear s ol d att he t i m e of the al l eged a s s aul tand tw o o f B e n a lly ’s p rio r v ictim s w e re u n d e r th e a g e o f fo u rte e n a t th e tim e B e n a lly r aped them, t w o of B enal l y ’ s pr i oract s w er e el i gi bl e foradmi s s i on underei ther R ul e 413 orR ul e 414. -10- di s t r i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng w i l l notbe di s turbed “a bs enta di s t i ncts how i ng i tw as bas ed on a c l ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ctoran err oneous concl us i on of l aw or m ani fes t s a cl earerr orof j udgm ent . ” Id . (qu o tat ion o m itted). If th is co u rt concl udes t he admi s s i on of evi dence w as err oneous , i tm us tthen cons i derw hether th e e rr o r w a s h a rm le s s . Id. Feder al R ul es of Evi dence 413 and 414 addr es s pr opens i tyevi dence i n the cont extof s exual as s aul tand chi l d m ol es t at i on. T hes e rul es pr ovi de an e xcept i on t o t he gene r al rul e codi fi ed i n R ul e 404( a) , w hi ch pr ohi bi t s the admi s s i on of e v id e n c e fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f s h o w in g a d e fe n d a n t’ s p ro p e n s ity to c o m m it b a d a c ts . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . G u a rd ia , 1 3 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). P u rsu a n t to R u le 4 1 3 (a ), w h e n “ th e d e fe n d a n t is a c c u se d o f a n o ffe n se o f

se x u a l as sa u lt, evi dence of the defendant ’ s comm i s s i on of anotheroffe ns e oroffe ns es of s exual a ss a u lt i s a d m iss ib le, a n d m a yb e c o n sid e re d fo r its b e a rin g o n a n ym a tter to w h ich it i s re lev a n t.” R u le 4 1 4 (a ) c o n tain s id e n tica l lan g u a g e re late d to acc us at i ons of chi l d m ol es t at i on. C ons i s t entw i th congr es s i onal i nt entr egar di ng 1 th e a d m iss io n o f

e v id e n c e ten d in g to sh o w th e d e fe n d a n t’s p ro p e n sityto c o m m it s exual as s aul torchi l d m ol es t at i on, “court s ar e t o ‘ l i ber al l y ’ admi tevi dence of-11-

pr i orunchar ged s ex offens es . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Meacham , 115 F. 3d 1488, 1492 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). U n d er G uar di a and United S tates v. McHorse , 1 7 9 F .3 d 8 8 9 , 8 9 7

– 9 8 (1 0 th C i r . 1999) , e v id e n c e o f a p rio r se x u a l as sa u lt m u st m e e t th re e th re sh o ld requi rem ents befo re i tm aybe co nsi dered fo r adm i ssi on . T he d i stri ctcou rtm ust d e ter m in e (1 ) th e d e fe n d a n t is a c c u se d o f a c rim e in v o lv in g se x u a l as sa u lt o r c h ild m ol es t at i on, ( 2) t he evi dence pr offe r ed i s evi dence of the defendant ’ s comm i s s i on of anotheroffe ns e oroffe ns es i nvol vi ng s exual as s aul torchi l d m ol es t at i on, and (3 ) t h e e v id e n c e is re le v a n t. McHorse , 1 7 9 F .3 d a t 8 9 8 ; G u a rd ia , 135 F. 3d at 1328. R el evantevi dence i s t hatw hi ch has “anyt endenc yt o m ake the exi s t ence o f a n yfa ct th at i s o f c o n seq u en ce to the d eterm ination o f th e a cti o n m o re pr obabl e orl es s pr obabl e than i tw oul d be w i thoutthe evi dence . ” Fed. R . E vi d. 401. E ven w her e evi dence i s det erm i ned t o be r el evant , how ever , the a d m iss ib ili tyo f

R u le 4 1 3 /4 1 4 e v id e n c e is s u bjec t to th e R u le 4 0 3 b a lan c in g tes t, w h ich p e rm its th e e x c lu sio n o f re lev a n t ev id e n c e “ ‘if its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed byt he dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce. ’ ” G u a rd ia , 135 F. 3d at1329 ( quot i ng Fed. R . E vi d. 403) ( hol di ng R ul e 403 appl i es t o det erm i ne the a d m iss ib ili tyo f

R u le 4 1 3 e v id e n c e ); Meacham , 1 1 5 F .3 d a t 1 4 9 5 (sta tin g R u le 4 1 4 e v id e n c e is s u bje c t to R u le 4 0 3 b a la n c in g ). I n Uni t ed Stat es v. E nj ady , 1 3 4 F . 3 d 1 4 2 7 , 1 4 3 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ), this co u rt expl ai ned thati n cas es w her e the governm ents eeks t o i ntr oduce Rul e 413-12-

e v id e n c e , the d istric t co u rt m u st m a k e a p re lim in a ryfin d in g th a t a ju ryc o u ld re a s o n a b ly f

in d th a t th e “ o th e r a c t” o c c u rr e d b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . T h e d istric t co u rt sh o u ld th e n c o n sid e r: 1) how cl ear l yt he pr i oracthas been pr oved; 2) how pr obat i ve the evi dence i s of the mat er i al fac ti ti s admi t t ed t o pr ove; 3) how s er i ous l ydi s put ed the mat er i al fac ti s ; and 4) w hetherthe governm entcan a vai l i t s el f of a nyl es s pr ej udi ci al evi dence . W hen a n a ly z in g th e p ro b a tiv e d a n g e rs, a c o u rt c o n sid e rs: 1 ) h o w lik e lyit i s su c h e v id e n c e w ill c o n trib u te to a n im p ro p e rly -b a se d ju ryv e rd ict; 2) t he ext entt o w hi ch s uch evi dence w i l l di s tr actthe j uryfr om the c e n tra l issu e s o f

th e trial; a n d 3 ) h o w tim e c o n su m in g it w ill b e to p ro v e th e p rio r c o n d u c t. Id. ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T o fur t heras s i s tdi s tr i ctcour t s i n anal y zi ng pr obat i venes s underthe s econd E nj ady fac t or , the G u a rd ia cour tenumer at ed cons i der at i ons w hi ch mayi nfl uence the court ’ s anal y s i s , i ncl udi ng ( 1) the s i m i l ar i t yof the pr i oract s and the cha r ged ac t s , ( 2) the t i m e l aps e betw een the ot heract s and the cha r ged ac t s , ( 3) the fr equenc yof the pr i oract s , ( 4) the occurr ence of i nt erveni ng event s , and ( 5) the nee d forevi dence bey ond t he d e fe n d a n t’ s a n d a lle g e d v ic tim ’s te s tim o n y . G u a rd ia , 1 3 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 1 . W hen the governm ents eeks t o i ntr oduce Rul e 413 or414 evi dence , the di s t r i ctcour thas an obl i gat i on “t o ful l yeval uat e the pr offe r ed . . . evi dence and m ake a cl earr ecor d of the r eas oni ng behi nd i t s fi ndi ngs ” as t o w hetherthe e v id e n c e s u rv iv e s th e R u le 4 0 3 b a la n c in g te s t. Id. ; s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. C a stillo , 140 F. 3d 874, 884 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) . T he di s tr i ctcour tful fi l l ed that obl i gat i on i n t hi s cas e. I tcar eful l yaddr es s ed the E nj ady and G u a rd ia fac t or s and-13-

r eac hed a pe r m i s s i bl e conc l us i on r egar di ng the admi s s i bi l i tyof the t es t i m oni al e v id e n c e . T he di s t r i ctcour tfi r s tdet erm i ned B enal l y ’ s pr i orconductw as r el evantand the o ther G u a rd ia t hr es hol d r equi r ement s had bee n m et . T he courtthen m ethodi cal l yaddr es s ed the E nj ady fac t or s t o det erm i ne w hetherthe evi dence w as excl udabl e underR ul e 403. A s t o the fi r s tthr ee i nci dent s , the courtconcl uded t he fa ctof B enall y ’s rape and assaul tand batt erycon vict i on s sat i sfi ed the fi rs t E nj ady fa c to r fo r t h e in c id e n ts in v o lv in g V ir g in ia , S a ra h , a n d B e tty, re s p e c tiv e ly. I n connec t i on w i t h t he al l eged i nci denti nvol vi ng R ow ena, the courtconcl uded an evi dent i aryhear i ng w as nece s s aryt o det erm i ne, as a pr el i m i narym at t er , w hether a j ur ycoul d fi nd bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatB enal l yr aped Row ena. R eferring sp ec ifi ca ll yto the rap es o f V ir g inia, S ara h , an d B etty , the c o u rt nextaddr es s ed the s econd E nj ady fac t or , the pr obat i ve val ue of the 413/ 414 e v id e n c e . E nj ady , 134 F. 3d at1433. T he courtl ooked t o the G u a rd ia co u rt ’s g u id a n c e in fo c u s in g its p ro b a tiv e n e s s a n a lysis . S e e G u a rd ia , 1 3 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 1 . M o st s ig n ifica n t in th e c o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s h ig h ly pr obat i ve w as the s i m i l ar i t ybetw een the curr entchar ge and the pr i oract s . T he cour ts t at ed, T he i nci dent s w hi ch the governm ents eeks t o i ntr oduce c ont ai n a num berof s i m i l ar i t i es t o t he i nci dental l eged i n thi s cas e. T he in c id e n ts in v o lv e y o u n g fe m a les , m o stlyy o u n g fe m a le fa m ily m ember s . T he i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved i n the pr i ori nci dent s ar e s i m i l ar i n age t o eac h ot herand ar e s i m i l ari n age t o the i ndi vi dual i nvol ved-14-

i n t he cha r ged offens e. A ddi t i onal l y , m anyof the i nci dent s i nvol ved e ith e r t h e u s e o f

fo rc e o r a w e a p o n , a s d id th e c h a rg e d in c id e n t. T h u s, th e sim ilarityo f th e se in c id e n ts s h o w s th a t th e ya re h ig h ly pr obat i ve. A s t o t he othercons i der at i ons enumer at ed i n G uar di a r egar di ng t he pr obat i ve val ue of the t es t i m ony , t he courtacknow l edged the s i gni fi cantt i m e l aps e betw een t he i nci dent s i nvol vi ng V i r gi ni a, Sar ah, and B et ty , and the cha r ged conduc t in v o lv in g N .W . T h e c o u rt u lti m a telyc o n c lu d e d , h o w e v e r, th a t th e tim e lap se d id noti n i t s el f nega t e the pr obat i ve val ue of t es t i m onyaboutthe pr i ori nci dent s and s t at ed the i nci dent s w er e s t i l l “hi ghl ypr obat i ve, des pi t e thei rage. ” I n s uppor tof i t s concl us i on, t he courtci t ed the Tent h C i r cui t ’ s di s cus s i on of congr es s i onal i nt enti n Meacham , w hi ch i ndi cat ed “ther e i s no t i m e l i m i tbey ond w hi ch pr i or s ex offens es bya defendantar e i nadmi s s i bl e. ” Meacham , 115 F. 3d at1492 (c itin g R u le 4 1 3 ’s H is to ri c a l N o te s w h ic h , in tu rn , c ite to c o n g re s s io n a l h is to ry). T he co urtal so st at ed ther e had been no i nterven i ng even t s bet w een the fi rs t cl us t erof as s aul t s , t he al l eged i nci denti nvol vi ng R ow ena, and the cha r ged co n d u ct i n v o lving N . W . , to u n d erm ine th e p rob ati v e v alue o f th e e v iden ce . In co m p let ing it s an aly sis of p rob ati v en ess, th e c o u rtturn ed to the g o v ern m en t’ s n e e d fo r th e R u le 4 1 3 /4 1 4 e v id e n c e a n d sta ted th e g o v e rn m e n t’s re lian c e o n c h ild w i t nes s es w hos e cr edi bi l i t yw oul d “s ur el y[be] chal l enge[ d] ” nec es s i t at ed the i nt r oduct i on of the pr i oract s evi dence .-15-

T he co urtnex treturned to i t s E nj ady anal y s i s , s t at i ng the mat er i al fac tat issue , w h ethe r th e a ll eg ed assa u ltag ains t N . W . o cc u rred , w as “ h o tl yd ispu ted.” It a lso c o n c lu d e d th a t, be c a u se o f q u e stio n s a b o u t th e c re d ib ili tyo f th e c h ild w i t nesses, t here w as no o t her evi den ce ava i l able t o the defen se that w ou l d b e l ess pr ej udi ci al . A ddr es s i ng t he “pr obat i ve dange r s ” enumer at ed bythe E nj ady c o u rt, t he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded the r i s k of an i m pr operj ur yver di ctw oul d be l es s ened b yp rov iding li m it ing instruction s to the jury ; i t determ ined an yri sk o f ju ry di s t r act i on coul d be amel i or at ed bym i ni m i zi ng t he quant i tyof evi dence offe r ed as w el l as byt he l i m i t i ng j ur yi ns truct i ons . Fi nal l y , the courts t at ed i tdi d not b e liev e th e in tro d u c tio n o f th e e v id e n c e w o u ld b e so tim e c o n su m in g a s to w arr anti t s excl us i on. B as ed on i t s eval uat i on of al l the E nj ady fa ctors, th e c o u rt concl uded the pr obat i ve val ue of the evi dence ati s s ue i n the i nci dent s i nvol vi ng V i r gi ni a, Sar ah, and B ett yw as nots ubs t ant i al l youtw ei ghed bythe dange rof u n fa i rp r ej u d i c e t o B e n a l l y. I n a s epar at e pr ocee di ng, the courthel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng t o det erm i ne th e a d m is s ib ility o f

R o w e n a ’s te s tim o n yre g a rd in g h e r a lle g e d ra p e b yB e n a lly. A f t e rh e a r i n g f

r o m R o w e n a , t h e c o u r td e t e r m i n e d a j u ry c o u l d fi n d b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hatthe r ape ha d occurr ed, s at i s fy i ng E nj ady ’sD ur i ng t he evi dent i aryhear i ng, t he di s tr i ctcourtr efe rr ed t o i t s rul i ng 2 re g a rd in g th e a d m iss ib ili tyo f th e o th e r th re e in c id e n ts a n d sta ted th a t an a ly sis a l s o a p p l i e d t o t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e a n d p r o b a t i v e d a n g e r s o f R o w e n a ’ s t e s t i m o n y. A lth o u g h th e e a rlier ru lin g w a s e x p licitlylim ited o n lyto th e th re e in c id e n ts i nvol vi ng V i r gi ni a, Sar ah, and B et ty , t he courtcl ear l ycons i der ed i n i t s or dert he i nci denti nvol vi ng R ow ena w hen di s cus s i ng the pr obat i venes s of B enal l y ’ s pr i or co n d u ct an d the lac k o f in terve n ing circu m stan ce s. B ec au se th e fo u r i n cide n ts are al l s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l art o one another , t he thor ough anal y s i s of the E nj ady fac t or s and G u a rd ia pr obat i venes s cons i der at i ons under t aken i n the di s tr i ct cour t ’ s ear l i errul i ng w as s uffi ci entt o perm i tt he court ’ s m or e abbr evi at ed di s cus s i on of E nj ady a t th e e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . C a stillo , 1 4 0 F . 3 d 8 7 4 , 8 8 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). -16- t hr es hol d r equi r ement . T he courtthen, once a gai n, r eci t ed the E nj ady fac t or s and s t at ed R ow ena’ s t es t i m onyw oul d be admi t t ed. 2 C ons i der i ng t he r ecor d as a w hol e, t hi s courts ees nothi ng t o s ugges tt he di s t r i ctcour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on w hen rul i ng on the admi s s i bi l i tyof the t es t i m onyof B enal l y ’ s fourpr i orvi ct i m s . B enal l yhas notpr es ent ed any ar gum entr egar di ng t he appl i cat i on of the E nj ady fa ctors o r G u a rd ia cons i der at i ons t hatper s uades us otherw i s e. C ontr aryt o B enal l y ’ s as s er t i ons , t he pr i ori nci dent s cont ai n s i gni fi cants i m i l ar i t i es t o N . W . ’ s al l eged a s s aul t : eac h i nv olved a y ou ng w om an w ho m B enall yprevi ou sl ykn ew and t w o w ere cl ose r el at i ves ; al l i nvol ved for ce of s om e type. I ti s i ncons equent i al t hatt he pr i or in c id e n ts in v o lv e d a n a c tu a l r a p e , w h e re a s B e n a lly’s p u rp o rt e d a s s a u lt o n N .W . in v o lv e d o n lyg e n ital to u c h in g . E sp e c iallyg iv e n th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e a ss a u lt on N . W . , w her e an a ctual r ape c oul d conce i vabl yhave oc curr ed had N . W . not a ttem p ted to fig h t B e n a llyo ff a n d h a d th e fo u r o th e r c h ild re n n o t b e e n p re se n t,-17-

t his differ ence in t he d egree of sev eri tyof B enall y ’s con du ctcann ot s erve as a b asis fo r th is co u rtto rev erse the d istri ct co u rt ’s co n side red jud g m en t. B en all y ’s ar gum entr egar di ng t he t i m e l aps e betw een the pr i ori nci dent s and the cha r ged a ss a u lt i s s im ilarlyu n p e rsu a siv e sin c e B e n a llyh im se lf a c k n o w led g e s th is c irc u it has obs erved no br i ghtl i ne rul e r egar di ng t he t i m i ng of cha r ged conduc tr el at i ve to p ri o r a c ts . See Meacham , 1 1 5 F .3 d a t 1 4 9 2 ; s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. D rew ry , 3 6 5 F .3 d 9 5 7 , 9 6 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (“ S u fficie n t fa c tu a l sim ilarityc a n re h a b ili tate e v id e n c e . . . th a t m ig h t o th e rw is e b e in a d m is s ib le d u e to s ta le n e s s .” ), vacated on othergr ounds , 5 4 3 U .S . 1 1 0 3 (2 0 0 5 ), and r em anded , 1 3 3 F e d . A p p ’x 5 4 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A s t o B enal l y ’ s ar gum entthatal l of the pr i oract s occurr ed w hi l e he w as an a lco h o lic, B e n a llyis c o rre c t th a t a c h a n g e in h is d rin k in g h a b its m a yg e n e ra lly c o n stitu te a n in ter v e n in g c irc u m sta n c e . T h e c h a n g e in B e n a lly ’s d rin k in g h a b its w as , how ever , pr es ent ed t o t he j urythr ough the t es t i m onyof R ow ena a nd St anfor d B enal l y . T he j ur yw as ther efor e abl e t o cons i derthi s t es t i m ony , al ong w i t h al l t he othert es t i m ony , w hen w ei ghi ng t he i m por t ance of the R ul e 413/ 414 evi dence . A s a cons equenc e, t he cha nge i n B enal l y ’ s dr i nki ng habi t s i s notan a d e q u a te in ter v e n in g c irc u m sta n c e re q u irin g th e e x c lu sio n o f th e p rio r a c ts te s tim o n y . F in a lly , B e n a llyis in c o rre c t in h is a ss e rtio n th a t th e o n lyre a so n to i nt r oduce thi s evi dence w as t o bi as the j ury . E vi dence of others i m i l arcr i m esA t oral arg u m en t, there w as so m e su g g esti o n that the d istri ct co u rt 3 ad m itted th e R u le 41 3 /41 4 ev iden ce so lel yb ec au se, w ith o u t i t, the g o v ern m en t’ s cas e w as exce pt i onal l yw eak. W e agr ee thatt hi s al one w oul d have be en an i m perm i s s i bl e j us t i fi cat i on foradmi s s i on and w oul d have a m ount ed t o an abus e of t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s cr et i on. T hi s court ’ s t hor ough r evi ew of the r ecor d, how ever , s at i s fi es us t hatt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o admi tt he evi dence w as gr ounded i n a pr opercons i der at i on of the E nj ady and G u a rd ia fa c to rs a n d n o t in an i m pr opercons i der at i on of the s tr ength orw eakne s s of the governm ent ’ s cas e. -18- i nvol vi ng s exual as s aul tand chi l d m ol es t at i on w as det erm i ned byC ongr es s t o be p ro b a tiv e o f

a d e fe n d a n t’ s p ro p e n s ity to c o m m it s u c h c ri m e s . See Meacham , 115 F. 3d at1492. T he purpos e fori ntr oduci ng evi dence of B enal l y ’ s pr i ors exual as s aul t s w as t o pr ovi de the j ur yw i th j us ts uch pr obat i ve pr opens i tyevi dence . 3 A d d it ion all y , an yjuryb ias th at m ayh av e re su lt ed fro m the d istri ct co u rt ’s d e c i s i o n t o a d mi tt h i s e v i d e n c e wo u l d h a v e b e e n mi t i g a t e d b yt h e c o u r t ’ s t wo s epar at e i ns t ruct i ons t o t he j ur yr egar di ng the j ury ’ s perm i s s i bl e and i m perm i s s i bl e us es of the evi dence . I V . C oncl usi on T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o admi tevi dence of B enal l y ’ s fourpr i or sex u al assa u lt s w as n o t an a b u se o f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s discre ti o n . T h e e v iden ti ary rul i ng of the dis t ri ctcou rtw as proper and B enall y ’s con vict i on i s AF F I RM ED .