United States District Court, D. Montana, Billings Division
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART, AND DENYING
IN PART WITH LEAVE TO RENEW, DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN
P. WATTERS United States District Judge.
the Court is Defendant Matthew Olson's Motion in Limine.
(Doc. 49). For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN
PART, DENIES IN PART, and DENIES IN PART WITH LEAVE TO RENEW,
Olson's Motion in Limine.
is charged by indictment with one count of Receipt of Child
Pornography and one count of Possession of Child Pornography.
(Doc. 2). The indictment alleges that between April 4, 2015,
and June 9, 2015, Olson knowingly received video files
depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct on a
computer, and that on June 15, 2015, Olson knowingly
possessed still picture images of child pornography on a
computer. (Doc. 2 at 2).
videos found on the computer depict a father or stepfather
relationship between an adult male and minor female. (Doc. 55
at 6-7); (Doc. 62 at 2-3). The sexual conduct in the videos
includes digital, penile, and oral penetration of the minor
female's vagina by the adult male. (Doc. 55 at 6-7);
(Doc. 62 at 2-3).
separate recorded interviews with the McCone County Sherriff
conducted in May and June of 2013, twin sisters alleged Olson
sexually abused them approximately ten years prior. (Doc. 51
at 2-4). According to the twins, the abuse occurred in the
basement bedroom of a residence they lived in with their
mother, Olson, and younger siblings. (Doc. 51 at 2-4). Olson
is not the twins' father but is the father of the
twins' younger siblings. (Doc. 62 at 3-4). Olson was
approximately twenty-five years old when the alleged abuse
occurred. (Doc. 11 at 1).
first twin to be interviewed stated Olson sexually abused her
three to four times a week between the ages of twelve and
fourteen. (Doc. 51 at 3). The abuse included digital and
penile penetration of her vagina. (Doc. 51 at 3). The second
twin to be interviewed stated Olson sexually abused her on a
weekly basis between the ages often and thirteen. (Doc. 51 at
3-4). The abuse included digital and oral penetration of her
vagina, and attempted penile penetration of her vagina. (Doc.
51 at 3-4). Both twins stated Olson threatened to take their
younger siblings away if they told. (Doc. 51 at 3-4). No
charges were brought against Olson concerning the twins'
allegations. (Doc. 62 at 3).
government notified Olson of its intent to call the twins to
testify about the alleged abuse. (Doc. 55 at 2). Olson moved
to exclude the twins' testimony, the introduction of
adult pornography found on the computer, and the introduction
of a large number of child pornography images. (Doc. 49).
Standard of review
district judge's ruling under Rule 403 that evidence is
more probative than prejudicial is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018,
1024 (9th Cir. 2001).
criminal case in which a defendant is accused of child
molestation, the court may admit evidence that the defendant
committed any other child molestation. Fed.R.Evid. 414(a).
The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is
relevant. Fed.R.Evid. 414(a). "Child molestation"
means, among other things, a crime under federal law
involving any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 110.
Fed.R.Evid. 414(d). Receipt of Child Pornography and
Possession of Child Pornography are both crimes under 18
U.S.C. chapter 110. 18 U.S.C. § 2252.
admissible under Rule 414 must still be admissible under Rule
403. Fed.R.Evid. 414(d); LeMay, 260 F.3d at 1027.
Under Rule 403, the court may exclude relevant evidence if
its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger
of unfair prejudice. In determining whether to admit evidence
of a defendant's prior acts of sexual misconduct under
Rule 403, the court considers the following factors: (1) the
similarity of the prior acts to the acts charged; (2) the
closeness in time of the prior acts to the acts charged; (3)
the frequency of the prior acts; (4) the presence or lack of
intervening circumstances; and (5) the necessity of the
evidence beyond the testimonies already offered at trial.
LeMay, 260 F.3d at 1027-1028.