Opinion ID: 2770238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: A.B.'s Age

Text: The Supreme Court held in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2163 (2013), that facts increasing a defendant's mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to a jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither side disputes that A.B.'s age was a fact that increased the mandatory minimum sentence applicable to Parshall. See 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (applying to victims who have not attained the age of 12 years). Parshall contends, however, that because the verdict form referred to -7- sexual abuse of a minor, the jury was therefore not asked to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged victim was under the age of twelve years old. The verdict form asked whether Parshall was guilty of the crime of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, as charged in Count 1 and in Count 2 of the indictment. The indictment, which the court specifically read to the jury, stated under each count that the victim was a child under the age of twelve years. More importantly, the district court specifically instructed the jury at least twice, once before trial started, and once at the end of trial, about the elements of the crimes charged in the indictment—including that A.B. must be less than 12 years old. The court made clear to the jury in both instances that every element of the crimes must each be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury is presumed to have followed these instructions. See Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 234 (2000) (citing Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987)). Parshall presents no convincing evidence to rebut that presumption. Moreover, Fawn, A.B., and A.B.'s grandmother all testified that A.B. was seven years old at the time of trial. Parshall does not dispute that A.B. was less than 12 years old at the time of the alleged abuse. Parshall also does not contend that the jury was unable to evaluate A.B.'s age while she testified in court. Thus, even assuming the verdict form's reference to minor was an error, it was harmless. See Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999) (The error at issue here—a jury instruction that omits an element of the offense—differs markedly from the constitutional violations we have found to defy harmless-error review.).