United States v. LeMay
260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Evidence 414, which permits the admission of a defendant's prior offenses of child molestation as propensity evidence, is constitutional because the balancing test of Federal Rule of Evidence 403 remains applicable to safeguard the defendant's due process right to a fair trial.
Facts:
- In 1989, when Fred LeMay was twelve years old, he was living with his aunt, Francine LeMay.
- While babysitting his two young female cousins (ages two years and eight months), LeMay sexually abused them.
- LeMay's aunt discovered the abuse, and LeMay admitted to having 'put his penis in' the older child's mouth.
- In the summer of 1997, LeMay was babysitting his two nephews, D.R. and A.R., ages five and seven, at his sister's home on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation.
- LeMay forced both boys to perform oral copulation on him.
- LeMay threatened to beat the boys if they told anyone about the incident.
- The following morning, the boys informed their mother, Justine Shields, of the abuse.
Procedural Posture:
- Fred LeMay was charged in the United States District Court for the District of Montana with two counts of child molestation.
- Prior to trial, the prosecution provided notice of its intent to introduce evidence of LeMay's 1989 juvenile rape adjudication under Federal Rule of Evidence 414.
- LeMay filed a motion to exclude the evidence, challenging the constitutionality of Rule 414 and arguing for its exclusion under Rule 403.
- The district court held a pre-trial hearing, denied LeMay's facial constitutional challenge, and deferred ruling on the as-applied and Rule 403 issues until trial.
- After the prosecution presented its case-in-chief, the district court ruled that the prior acts evidence was admissible under Rule 403.
- A jury found LeMay guilty of both counts of molestation.
- LeMay appealed his convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 414, which allows the admission of a defendant's prior acts of child molestation to show propensity, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Trott, J.
No. Federal Rule of Evidence 414 does not violate the Due Process Clause because the continued application of Rule 403 provides an adequate constitutional safeguard. The court reasoned that while the historical ban on propensity evidence is a strong tradition, an exception for sex-offense cases has also long existed. The dispositive factor making Rule 414 constitutional is that it does not operate in a vacuum; district courts must still apply Rule 403 to exclude prior acts evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. This balancing test ensures that 'potentially devastating evidence of little probative value will not reach the jury,' thereby protecting the defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial. The court joins several other circuits in holding that as long as the protections of Rule 403 remain in place, Rule 414 passes constitutional muster.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Paez, J.
I concur that Rule 414 is constitutional, but I dissent from the majority's conclusion that the district court properly applied Rule 403. The dissent argues that due to the inherently prejudicial nature of evidence admitted under Rule 414, a district court must conduct the Rule 403 balancing test on the record, explicitly considering the factors outlined in Glanzer. In this case, the district court failed to make any record of its Rule 403 analysis, merely stating the evidence was 'relevant' without weighing its probative value against its significant potential for unfair prejudice. This failure constitutes an abuse of discretion, and the case should be remanded for the district court to conduct a proper, on-the-record analysis.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the constitutionality of Federal Rule of Evidence 414, aligning the Ninth Circuit with other federal circuits. It establishes that the rule's significant departure from the common law ban on propensity evidence is permissible because Rule 403 acts as a critical constitutional safeguard. The case underscores that admitting such evidence is not automatic; trial courts have a mandatory duty to conduct a careful, on-the-record balancing test. This holding requires trial judges to actively weigh specific factors to prevent unfair prejudice, thereby shaping the practical application of Rule 414 in all future child molestation prosecutions.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. LeMay