Opinion ID: 2826644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motion to Dismiss Counts 4 through 6

Text: Lohse argues that his convictions and separate sentences for the receipt and possession counts violate the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause. Specifically, he contends that the receipt offense charged in count 2 of the superseding indictment was broad enough to encompass the possession offenses charged in counts 4 through 6. Thus, Lohse argues, the district court should have given a lesser-included-offense instruction. Lohse neither raised a double jeopardy defense before trial nor requested an instruction that possession was the lesserincluded offense of receipt. Accordingly, we review his claim for plain error. United States v. Huether, 673 F.3d 789, 798 (8th Cir. 2012) (reviewing for plain error the district court’s failure to give a lesser-included-offense instruction). To prevail on this claim, Lohse must first “show he was convicted of ‘two offenses that are in law and fact the same.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Muhlenbruch, 634 F.3d 987, 1002 (8th Cir. 2011)). The parties do not dispute that the possession offenses are lesser-included to the receipt offense under the law. Lohse has not shown, however, that the receipt conviction is based on the same facts as the possession convictions. The verdict form conclusively establishes that the conviction for the receipt offense was based on four videos that were downloaded onto the IBM Deskstar hard drive, whereas the possession offenses were based on videos that were found on the RAID array, the Western Digital hard drive, and the Maxell CD. -9- Although count 2 of the superseding indictment did not allege a device on which Lohse allegedly received child pornography, the government identified before trial four videos that were downloaded on the IBM Deskstar hard drive. At trial, Kessler testified that the zone identifier files related to the four videos indicated that they had been downloaded to the IBM Deskstar hard drive on February 24 and 25, 2010. The jury returned a guilty verdict on count 2, finding that Lohse had received those four videos. Counts 4 through 6 of the superseding indictment each identified a separate device on which Lohse allegedly possessed child pornography, and the government identified before trial the videos of alleged child pornography on which it intended to rely for counts 4 through 6. The government presented evidence that Lohse possessed child pornography on each of those devices, and the jury returned a guilty verdict on counts 4 through 6, finding that Lohse had possessed certain videos of child pornography on the RAID array, the Western Digital hard drive, and the Maxell CD. Because the evidence and the jury verdict form did not allow a finding of guilt on the receipt offense charged in count 2 based on the same evidence that supported the possession offenses charged in counts 4 through 6, the district court did not plainly err in failing to sua sponte give a lesser-included-offense instruction. Lohse also argues that because the superseding indictment did not identify a device on which child pornography was received, the verdict form impermissibly expanded the indictment by identifying videos that were found on the IBM Deskstar hard drive for count 2. In Lohse’s words, the verdict form “created separate convictions for charges that would otherwise have been dismissed as lesser offenses.” Appellant’s Br. 36. The verdict form, however, permissibly separated the evidence for the receipt count from the evidence for the possession counts. The verdict form also was consistent with Model Criminal Jury Instruction 6.18.2252 which provides, “You have heard evidence of more than one visual depiction involved in the offense. You must agree unanimously as to which visual depiction(s) the defendant -10- possessed.” We thus cannot say that the district court plainly erred in identifying on the verdict form the four videos related to the receipt offense charged in count 2.
Lohse argues that the possession offenses charged in counts 4 through 6 were multiplicitous. “The rule against multiplicitous prosecutions is based on the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, which ‘protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.’” United States v. Hinkeldey, 626 F.3d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 (internal quotation omitted)). Where “an indictment includes more than one count charging the same statutory violation, the question is whether Congress intended the facts underlying each count to constitute a separate unit of prosecution.” Id. As recounted above, Lohse raised this multiplicity defense after his trial had concluded. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) requires that a motion alleging a defect in the indictment be made before trial. At the time Lohse filed his post-trial motion to dismiss, Rule 12(e) provided that “[a] party waives any Rule 12(b)(3) defense, objection, or request not raised by the deadline the court sets” for pretrial motions. The district court declined to decide whether Lohse had waived his multiplicity defense by failing to raise it before trial, saying, “Lohse’s potential waiver notwithstanding, I will address the merits of his double jeopardy claims.” D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2014, at 3 n.1. Certain amendments to Rule 12 took effect during the pendency of Lohse’s appeal. Rule 12(b)(3) now lists multiplicity as an objection to the indictment that “must be raised by pretrial motion if the basis for the motion is then reasonably available and the motion can be determined without a trial on the merits.” A Rule 12(b)(3) motion is untimely if a party does not meet the deadline set for pretrial motions, but a court may consider such an untimely motion “if the party shows good -11- cause.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3). In its April 25, 2014, order amending the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court instructed that the amended rules govern proceedings then pending “insofar as just and practicable.” In United States v. Anderson, 783 F.3d 727 (8th Cir. 2015), we considered the effect of the defendants’ failure to raise a double jeopardy issue before trial, in light of the amendments to Rule 12. We applied the amended version of Rule 12 and found no good cause to consider their argument. Id. at 740. We went on, however, to determine whether the district court had committed plain error, concluding that “even if this just-and-practicable standard were not met, [the defendants’] double-jeopardy argument still fails.” Id. at 741. Although Lohse’s motion to dismiss the indictment was untimely, the parties have not addressed whether there is good cause to consider Lohse’s multiplicity argument or whether it would be just and practicable to apply the amended version of Rule 12. The denial of his motion to dismiss based on a mutiplicitous indictment is entitled to—at best—plain error review based on the former version of Rule 12, see Anderson, 783 F.3d at 741, and it is under that standard of review that we consider Lohse’s argument. Section 2252A(a)(5)(B) calls for punishment of a person who “knowingly possesses . . . any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or any other material that contains an image of child pornography.” Lohse asks us to define the word “any” to mean “‘any one o[r] more’ such that possess[ing] any material containing child pornography in the same place, at the same time is a single violation of the statute.” Appellant’s Br. 39. Accordingly, the argument goes, the evidence presented could support only one count of possession because the RAID Array, the Western Digital hard drive, and the Maxell CD were found near one another in the basement of his home. In United States v. Hinkeldey, however, we held that the defendant’s “double jeopardy challenge to the separate possession counts must fail, because it is not ‘clear’ or ‘obvious’ under current law that Congress intended that -12- conduct like [the defendant’s] make up a single unit of prosecution.” 626 F.3d at 1013. As defense counsel in effect conceded at oral argument, under plain error review Hinkeldey controls, and thus Lohse’s multiplicity claim fails.