Opinion ID: 795956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of the uncharged prior sexual assaults to prove Count I

Text: 24 In regard to Count I, Seymour challenges the admission of the alleged, uncharged prior sexual assaults against the adult females D.T. and L.M. on two alternate grounds. He first argues that, when a defendant is on trial for child molestation, Rule 414 of the Federal Rules of Evidence limits the admission of evidence of prior sexual offenses to those against other children. Seymour contends that Rule 414 is the exclusive rule governing child-molestation cases, and not the more general Rule 413. He therefore argues that the jury should have considered the testimony of D.T. and L.M. only with respect to Count II, the adult-victim charge, and that a limiting instruction should have been provided to this effect. 25 Alternatively, Seymour contends that evidence admitted under either rule must be subjected to the balancing test in Rule 403. See, e.g., United States v. Benais, 460 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir.2006) (We have stated that evidence found admissible under Rule 413 or its close analog, Rule 414 (`Evidence of Similar Crimes in Child Molestation Cases'), may still be subject to exclusion under Rule 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.); Seeley v. Chase, 443 F.3d 1290, 1294-95 (10th Cir. 2006) (a court must apply Rule 403 to evidence submitted under Rule 413 or Rule 414); United States v. Crawford, 413 F.3d 873, 875 (8th Cir.2005) (applying Rule 403 to evidence submitted under Rule 413); United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1027 (9th Cir.2001) (same); United States v. Lawrence, No. 97-4480, 1999 WL 551358, at  (6th Cir. July 19, 1999) (unpublished) (applying Rule 403 to evidence submitted under Rule 414). Seymour argues that the district court erred when it determined that the testimony of prior uncharged sexual assaults against adults was not unduly prejudicial with respect to the child-molestation charge. Such evidence could not fail to reverberate in the minds of the jury, according to Seymour, and thus no jury instruction could neutralize the prejudicial effect of its admission.
26 Seymour did not raise below his present contention that the evidence of prior sexual assaults against adult victims D.T. and L.M. was inadmissible under Rule 414 to prove Count I, the child-molestation charge. Instead, he argued that the testimony of D.T. and L.M. would unfairly prejudice him and confuse the jury under Rule 403. If a defendant does not state the specific ground for his evidentiary objection, and that ground is not apparent from the context, we review a newly raised objection under the plain-error standard. See United States v. Haywood, 280 F.3d 715, 725 (6th Cir.2002) (holding that an objecting party is required to state the specific ground of objection only if the ground was not apparent from the context) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 27 The objection that Seymour now presents on appeal was not apparent from the context of the case or from the statements made below relating to this evidence. Even though the government stated in its motion in limine that Seymour will undoubtedly argue that sexual assault of an adult is different than child sexual abuse, he never made this argument to the district court when objecting to the admission of D.T.'s and L.M.'s testimony. We therefore review his present objection under the plain-error standard. 28 The plain-error inquiry involves the following four-step process under Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: 29 First, we are to consider whether an error occurred in the district court. Absent any error, our inquiry is at an end. However, if an error occurred, we then consider if the error was plain. If it is, then we proceed to inquire whether the plain error affects substantial rights. Finally, even if all three factors exist, we must then consider whether to exercise our discretionary power under Rule 52(b), or in other words, we must decide whether the plain error affecting substantial rights seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. 30 United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 630 (6th Cir.1993) (interpreting the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)); see also United States v. Jones, 108 F.3d 668, 670 (6th Cir.1997) (en banc) (following Thomas's division of the plain-error inquiry into four distinct, though interrelated, analyses).
31 The question of whether the district court erred in allowing D.T.'s and L.M.'s testimony as relevant evidence regarding the sexual assault against C.P., a minor, turns on a proper interpretation of the interaction among Rules 403, 413, and 414 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rules 413 and 414, enacted in 1995, were designed to protect the public from crimes of sexual violence by permitting in sexual assault and child molestation cases . . . evidence that the defendant has committed offenses of the same type on other occasions. 140 Cong. Rec. H8968, H8991 (daily ed. Aug. 21, 1994) (statement of Rep. Molinari). As such, they create an exception to the general ban on propensity evidence contained in Rule 404(b). See id. (The new rules will supersede in sex offense cases the restrictive aspects of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) ... [and] authorize admission and consideration of evidence of an uncharged offense for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.) (quotation marks omitted). 32 Rule 413 provides that [i]n a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of sexual assault, evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. Fed.R.Evid. 413(a). Sexual assault is defined in Rule 413(d) as any conduct proscribed by chapter 109A of title 18, United States Code, which includes offenses against both adults and minors. Rule 413, standing alone, is thus broad enough to permit evidence of prior sexual offenses against adults in a case of child molestation. 33 Seymour argues on appeal, however, that Rule 414—not Rule 413—controls the admissibility of the evidence in question to prove the child-molestation charge in Count I because Rule 414 is more specifically applicable to sexual assaults against minors. Rule 414 provides that [i]n a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of child molestation, evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of child molestation is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. Fed.R.Evid. 414(a). Child molestation includes both conduct proscribed in Chapter 109A of Title 18, if committed against a child, and offenses involving child pornography. Rule 414 eliminates the Rule 413 requirement that the alleged sexual contact have occurred without consent. Compare Fed.R.Evid. 414(d)(3) with Fed.R.Evid. 413(d)(2). But both Rule 413 and Rule 414 contain a clause stating that [t]his rule shall not be construed to limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any other rule. Fed.R.Evid. 413(c), 414(c). We thus find no incompatibility between the two rules. 34 Rule 403, which balances the probative value of relevant evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, applies to evidence that would be otherwise admissible under either rule. The district court in this case properly conducted a Rule 403 analysis of the testimony regarding the alleged uncharged sexual assaults against D.T. and L.M. in relation to the child molestation charge. C.P. was only seven years old at the time of the alleged assault, and thus the testimony of the adults D.T. and L.M. was less probative as propensity evidence with respect to Count I. But the testimony of C.P. and D.H. was markedly similar to the claims of D.T. and L.M., and this similarity enhances its probative value. See Johnson v. Elk Lake Sch. Dist., 283 F.3d 138, 144 (3d Cir.2002) (holding that where the past act is demonstrated with specificity and is substantially similar to the act(s) for which the defendant is being sued, it is Congress's intent that the probative value of the similar act be presumed to outweigh Rule 403's concerns). All four alleged victims were part of Seymour's extended family, and all four were allegedly assaulted on a bed after Seymour arrived in an intoxicated state. After consideration, the district court determined that the probative value of the testimony of D.T. and L.M. outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice to Seymour. We find no error in the decision made below on this issue. 35