Opinion ID: 4308596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Parks’s Other Acts

Text: Parks argues that the district court erred in admitting evidence that Parks asked S.L. and T.S. to have sex with him and that he provided drugs to the young women. We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.6 United States v. Thomas, 760 F.3d 879, 883 (8th Cir. 2014). Parks argues that because he was not charged with any crime relating to the solicitation of sex or to drugs, the evidence is irrelevant and therefore should not be admissible. We disagree. “Res gestae, also known as intrinsic evidence, is ‘evidence of wrongful conduct other than the conduct at issue . . . offered for the purpose of providing the context in which the charged crime occurred.’” United States v. Campbell, 764 F.3d 880, 888 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 463 F.3d 803, 808 (8th Cir. 2006)). “Such evidence is admitted to complete the story or provide a total picture of the charged crime.” Id. (alterations and internal quotation omitted). The district court did not err in admitting the testimony as res gestae evidence. Detective Derek Stigerts, an expert witness from the FBI’s Child Exploitation Task Force, testified about how pimps often recruit, coerce, and control prostitutes. Detective Stigerts discussed how a “finesse pimp” will often control and manipulate women through love, affection, drugs, and other non-violent methods. Specifically, he explained that pimps often recruit minors who are runaways without a place to go by offering the young women a place to stay and at times a “boyfriend/girlfriend type of relationship.” Once the victim agrees, the pimp may attempt to get her addicted to drugs, and then threaten to withhold the drugs if the victim does not agree to do what the pimp demands. In light of these circumstances, Parks’s requests for sex from the 6 Parks did not object when the government questioned T.S. regarding Parks’s request to have sex with her. We therefore review this claim for plain error. See United States v. Novak, 866 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review). -11- victims, as well as his offering of drugs, provided context to the prostitution crimes with which he was charged, thus rendering the evidence admissible. Parks further contends that the district court erred in admitting the evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because the potential prejudice of the evidence outweighed its probative value. Other acts evidence may be admissible for purposes of “proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). To admit such evidence, the government must show that “(1) it is relevant to a material issue, (2) it is similar in kind and not overly remote in time to the charged offense, (3) it is supported by sufficient evidence, and (4) its potential prejudice does not substantially outweigh its probative value.” United States v. Ellis, 817 F.3d 570, 579 (8th Cir. 2016). We will reverse a district court’s ruling “only when the evidence clearly had no bearing on the case and was introduced solely to show defendant’s propensity to engage in criminal misconduct.” United States v. Farish, 535 F.3d 815, 819 (8th Cir. 2008). Parks argues that the evidence portrayed him as a statutory rapist and drug dealer and thus “lured [the jury] into declaring guilt.” Appellant’s Br. 44. To convict Parks under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, the jury had to find that he “knowingly . . . recruit[ed], entic[ed], harbor[ed], transport[ed], provid[ed], obtain[ed], advertis[ed], maintain[ed], patroniz[ed], or solicit[ed] by any means . . . [a] person to engage in a commercial sex act.” 18 U.S.C. § 1591. Both Parks’s knowledge and his intent were thus called into question during trial. See Campbell, 764 F.3d at 889 (citing United States v. Jarrett, 956 F.2d 864, 867 (8th Cir. 1992)). The probative value of the evidence accordingly outweighed the danger of potential prejudice because it showed Parks’s intent to solicit, entice, and maintain these women so that they would engage in commercial sex acts. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence regarding Parks’s solicitation of sex from S.L. or T.S. or his providing drugs to the young women. -12-