United States v. LeCompte
131 F.3d 767 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 414, evidence of a defendant's prior child molestation offenses is admissible, and while this evidence is still subject to the balancing test of Rule 403, courts must apply that test in a manner that gives effect to the strong congressional intent to admit such evidence, and may not exclude it based on the inherent prejudice that all such propensity evidence presents.
Facts:
- Leo LeCompte was charged with sexually abusing his wife's 11-year-old niece, C.D., in January 1996.
- The alleged abuse of C.D. occurred while she was on a couch at her aunt's trailer, with her siblings sleeping on the floor next to her.
- LeCompte allegedly joined C.D. on the couch, forced her to touch his penis, and touched her breasts.
- The government sought to introduce testimony from T.T., the niece of LeCompte's first wife.
- Between 1985 and 1987, LeCompte had allegedly committed similar sexual offenses against T.T. when she was a child.
- LeCompte's alleged actions against T.T. included playing games with her, exposing himself, forcing her to touch his penis, and touching her private parts.
- LeCompte was imprisoned for a portion of the time between 1987 and 1995, the period between the alleged offenses against T.T. and C.D.
Procedural Posture:
- In Leo LeCompte's first trial in federal District Court, the court admitted evidence of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b), and a jury convicted him.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the conviction, holding the evidence was improperly admitted under Rule 404(b), and remanded for a new trial.
- On remand before the retrial, the government, as prosecutor, provided notice of its intent to offer the same evidence, but this time under the newly effective Rule 414.
- The defendant, LeCompte, filed a pretrial motion in limine to exclude the evidence.
- The District Court granted the defendant's motion, excluding the evidence under Rule 403 on the grounds that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
- The government, as appellant, filed a pretrial appeal of the District Court's evidentiary ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Evidence 403 require the exclusion of a defendant's prior, similar child molestation offenses, offered under Rule 414, where the district court finds the evidence's probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice inherent in such propensity evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Richard S. Arnold, Chief Judge
No. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 does not require exclusion in this circumstance because the balancing test must be applied in a way that effectuates the congressional intent behind Rule 414. The court reasoned that Rule 414 was enacted specifically to supersede the restrictive aspects of Rule 404(b) and make evidence of prior sexual offenses admissible to show a defendant's propensity. While Rule 414 evidence is subject to a Rule 403 balancing test, that test must be applied with a strong presumption of admissibility. The similarities between the alleged offenses against T.T. and C.D. gave the evidence significant probative value, while the differences were minor. The 'unfair prejudice' identified by the district court—the unique stigma of child sexual abuse—is precisely the kind of prejudice inherent in all such propensity evidence, and Congress's enactment of Rule 414 represents a legislative judgment that this evidence should be admitted despite that inherent prejudice. To exclude the evidence for this reason would be to nullify the purpose of Rule 414.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the relationship between Federal Rules of Evidence 414 and 403. It establishes that the Rule 403 balancing test must be applied with a strong presumption in favor of admitting evidence of prior sexual offenses under Rule 414. The decision effectively instructs lower courts that the 'unfair prejudice' prong of Rule 403 cannot be used to exclude this type of evidence based on the inherent stigma of the crime itself, as that would defeat the legislative purpose of Rule 414. This creates a thumb on the scale in favor of admissibility, making it significantly harder for defendants to exclude prior acts evidence in child molestation and sexual assault cases.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. LeCompte