United States v. Keeter

United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2018 · Evidence

Evidenceattemptchild sexual assaultundercover operationbelief about victim's agespecific intentlegal sufficiencyfactual sufficiency

Facts

As part of an NCIS undercover operation, an agent posted a Craigslist ad using a photo of herself at age 14 or 15, and in text exchanges repeatedly identified her persona, "Cris," as almost 15 and 14 years old. Over several days, the appellant exchanged increasingly sexual messages with Cris, sent nude pictures of himself, encouraged her to masturbate, and arranged to meet her at her home when her mother would be gone. The appellant testified he believed Cris was actually an adult roleplaying as a teenager, but he admitted Cris never claimed to be older than 14 and that he never confirmed she was an adult. He was apprehended when he arrived at the agreed location.

Issue

Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove that the appellant believed he was communicating with a person under 16 and intended to engage in sexual intercourse with her, and whether the military judge or counsel committed reversible error through the instructions, admission of testimony about the undercover operation, or closing argument.

Rule

Legal sufficiency asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any reasonable fact-finder could find all essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Factual sufficiency asks whether the appellate court, after weighing the evidence and making allowances for not seeing the witnesses, is itself convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Unpreserved instructional or evidentiary claims are reviewed for plain error, requiring error that is plain or obvious and materially prejudices a substantial right; in the instructional context, prejudice requires a reasonable probability of a different outcome. Ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland.

🔒

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 Phoenix, an undercover investigator used a profile stating, over several messages, that "Mia" was 15. Jordan Pike responded with sexual messages, sent explicit photos, and arranged to meet at Mia's apartment while her aunt was at work. At trial, Jordan admitted Mia never claimed to be older than 15 but testified he assumed she was an adult pretending to be younger.

On appeal, Jordan argues the evidence was legally insufficient to prove he believed he was communicating with someone under 16. What is the best response?

Explanation. Legal sufficiency asks whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any reasonable fact-finder could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. A fact-finder may reasonably reject a defendant's claim that he thought the correspondent was an adult where the correspondent consistently identified as under 16 and the defendant never confirmed adulthood. That standard does not require the government to eliminate every innocent inference. (Derived from United States v. Keeter (n.d.).)