Opinion ID: 2973950
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence as to General Atmosphere

Text: Ray argues that the trial court erred in admitting “general atmosphere” evidence, including testimony that minors were permitted to consume drugs and alcohol in Ray’s apartment, pictures of minors other than the two mentioned in the indictment, and pictures of Ray’s children. He does not argue that the conduct depicted in the photographs and identified in trial testimony never took place, -9- No. 05-5641 United States v. Ray but rather that the district court admitted the evidence for an impermissible purpose. The district court held that the evidence would not be excluded because it could establish lack of mistake: “I think that evidence is important for the jury to be able to look at those photographs and others to see that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have known and should have known that these individuals were under age.” The Government subsequently sought the admission of photographs depicting the general atmosphere in Ray’s apartment, although those photographs do not appear in the record before us. Numerous witnesses testified that Ray allowed the use of and/or provided alcohol and marijuana in his home. The photographs were admitted over Ray’s objection. The Government argues that the evidence of prior bad acts was not admitted to show propensity, but goes to prove whether Ray “knowingly employed, used, persuaded, induced, enticed or coerced” the minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 2251. The Government further argues that Ray enticed the minors by providing inexpensive tattoos, drugs and alcohol, sexually explicit pictures of other minors, a “teenage hangout,” and an atmosphere in which nudity and sexually explicit activity was acceptable. It also argues that the evidence goes to establish motive, intent, and knowledge or lack of mistake, under Rule 404(b). Rule 404(b) has also been interpreted as allowing the admission of evidence that goes to establish modus operandi. See United States v. Perry, 438 F.3d 642, 648 (6th Cir. 2006). Ray concedes that his knowledge of the girls’ ages was at issue, insofar as Ray claimed that he did not know that any of the minors were actually under eighteen at the time of the conduct in question. Ray argues, however, that knowledge was the only fact at issue for which prior acts evidence could be admitted; he argues that he never challenged the Government’s assertion that he - 10 - No. 05-5641 United States v. Ray induced the minors or took sexually explicit pictures. This assertion is baseless; Ray testified that he did not take many of the pictures in question, and he testified that he did not provide drugs or alcohol to anyone in his home. Thus, whether Ray provided drugs and alcohol to minors to induce them into engaging in sexually explicit conduct was at issue. Ray argues that even if such evidence could be admitted, none of the evidence offered by the Government goes to establish that Ray used drugs and alcohol to induce Angela or Jennifer, the minors named in the indictment, to engage in sexually explicit activity for the purpose of producing child pornography. He further argues that prior acts evidence generally cannot be admitted to prove intent or motive, citing United States v. Johnson, 27 F.3d 1186, 1193 (6th Cir. 1994) (holding that evidence of prior acts cannot be admitted to prove mens rea unless specific intent is an element of the charged offense). Ray’s arguments fail. Even if, arguendo, such evidence were improperly admitted to prove intent or motive, the evidence could have been properly admitted to establish another Rule 404(b) exception: modus operandi. The Government repeatedly argued that “the atmosphere that was created and purposefully created[,]. . .through those means he was able to entice, coerce, persuade these minors to engage in this conduct.” See United States v. Stevens, 303 F.3d 711, 716 (6th Cir. 2002) (“Where a single, legitimate purpose supports the admission of the evidence under Rule 404(b), a trial court’s admission of that evidence for additional reasons allowed under the rule does not constitute plain error.”). Certainly, this evidence was admissible to show the means by which Ray induced the minors charged in the indictment to engage in sexually explicit conduct. For that reason, the district court did not err in admitting the evidence of Ray’s prior bad acts. - 11 - No. 05-5641 United States v. Ray