United States v. Castillo

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998 · Evidence

140 F.3d 874 (10th Cir. 1998)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceFederal Rule of Evidence 414Federal Rule of Evidence 403Federal Rule of Evidence 402propensity evidencechild molestationdue processequal protection

Facts

Castillo was charged with sexual abuse offenses involving his daughters N.C. and C.C. At trial, the district court allowed both daughters to testify not only about the charged acts, but also about additional uncharged acts of sexual abuse by Castillo, admitting that testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 414. Castillo argued on appeal that Rule 414 was not yet effective, was unconstitutional, and in any event should have been excluded as unfairly prejudicial. He also challenged his wife's testimony, the sufficiency of the proof, the absence of a lesser included offense instruction on certain counts, and his sentence.

Issue

Whether Rule 414 was effective at the time of trial, whether Rule 414 is unconstitutional on its face under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and whether the district court properly admitted the Rule 414 evidence under Rule 403. The court also addressed whether other asserted trial and sentencing errors required reversal.

Rule

Rule 414 applies to all trials commenced after July 10, 1995. On its face, Rule 414 does not violate due process, equal protection, or the Eighth Amendment because Rule 414 evidence remains subject to Rules 402 and 403, and a district court admitting evidence under Rules 413-415 must make a reasoned, recorded Rule 403 determination. Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s refusal to depart downward except in the rare circumstance where the court states it lacks authority to depart for the entire class of circumstances proffered by the defendant.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal prosecution in Phoenix, a defendant is charged with child molestation. Over objection, the government seeks to introduce testimony from two other minors describing prior molestations, and the defendant argues that the rule allowing such propensity evidence is facially invalid because character evidence always makes a criminal trial fundamentally unfair.

How should the court rule on the facial due process challenge?

Explanation. The majority held that the child-molestation propensity rule is not facially unconstitutional under due process. The key reasoning was that evidentiary rules violate due process only if they offend fundamental conceptions of justice, and Rules 402 and 403 provide the essential safeguards by requiring relevance and excluding unfairly prejudicial evidence. The court therefore rejected a facial due process attack on the rule.