Opinion ID: 6349511
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prior Acts of Child Molestation

Text: When the defendant is accused of child molestation, evidence of any other acts of child molestation is admissible “on any matter to which it is relevant.” Fed. R. Evid. 414(a). “If relevant, such evidence is admissible unless its probative value is ‘substantially outweighed’ by one or more of the factors enumerated in Rule 403, including ‘the danger of unfair prejudice.’” United States v. Gabe, 237 F.3d 954, 959 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. LeCompte, 131 F.3d 767, 769 (8th Cir. 1997)). Evidence is probative if it involves “substantially similar offenses as the crimes charged.” United States v. Medicine Horn, 447 F.3d 620, 623 (8th Cir. 2006). Dowty argues the district court erred by allowing Williams and Lund to testify because the prior acts were too dissimilar from the charged act, they were too remote in time, and they were too prejudicial. The district court determined that this evidence was probative as compared to the charged conduct because of similarities between the methods of abuse and the age of the victims. The court also concluded that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the Rule 403 factors. We have upheld the admission of Rule 414 evidence as probative -4- when the method of contact and the age of the victim were similar. See United States v. Crow Eagle, 705 F.3d 325, 327-28 (8th Cir. 2013). As to remoteness, “[w]hen Rule 414 was enacted, Congress expressly rejected imposing any time limit on prior sex offense evidence.” Gabe, 237 F.3d at 960. The district court took steps to ensure the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial by considering the cumulative effect and denying the proffered testimonies of two additional women. While some amount of prejudice is to be expected when evidence is admitted under Rule 414, it did not rise to the level of unfair prejudice in this case. See Gabe, 237 F.3d at 959-60. We find no clear prejudicial abuse of discretion in admitting the testimony under Rule 414.