United States v. Summers.
No. 24-5030. 8/1/2025. N.D.Okla. Judge Tymkovich. Possession of Child Pornography—Sexual Abuse of a Minor—Prior Acts Evidence—Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)—Fed. R. Evid. 403—Limiting Instruction.
August 1, 2025
Summers began dating Hogue, who was 17 years old at the time and who is five years younger than Summers. Hogue has a younger sister, J.H., who was 14 years old at the time. J.H. spent time with Summers and Hogue, and all of them used Snapchat to communicate with each other. The Snapchat messages from Summers to J.H. became sexual in nature over time, and Summers engaged in sexual conduct with J.H. Summers was ultimately indicted on various charges of possession of child pornography and sexual abuse of a minor in connection with his conduct with Hogue and J.H. Before trial, the government filed a Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) notice of intent to introduce evidence that Summers solicited and transmitted child pornography several years earlier when he had a relationship with Miller, who was 16 or 17 years old at the time, and who had a younger sister M.M., who was 10 years old at the time. The notice stated that Summers would date an older teenage girl with a younger sister; would show sexual interest in the older sister, including by requesting child pornography, and would thus get access to and cultivate a relationship with the younger sister; and when confronted by law enforcement, Summers would deny his inculpatory acts and claim that his Snapchat account was hacked. The government asserted that Summers’s common plan and motive allowed Summers to gratify his sexual interest in children. The district court ruled that the prior acts evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b). The court circulated proposed jury instructions to the parties, who agreed on the jury instructions, including an instruction on similar acts pursuant to Rule 404(b). The court instructed the jury accordingly. Summers was found guilty of several counts relating to coercion and enticement and child sex offenses, and he was sentenced to 340 months in prison.
On appeal, Summers argued that the district court abused its discretion by admitting extrinsic evidence of his prior conduct because the evidence was not admitted for a proper purpose and its probative weight was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. However, Summers’s actions were parallel in both instances in that he requested and/or created child pornography from his then-minor girlfriend; sexual messages were sent through Snapchat; Summers requested and sent nude photographs to minor victims through Snapchat, and the relationship ended only when the minor victims’ parents reported Summers; and Summers initially told law enforcement that he never communicated with the minor victims, then later admitted that he had sent some messages, but claimed that his Snapchat account was hacked. He also claimed that the minor victims’ father or stepfather had set him up. Accordingly, the prior acts evidence was relevant and admitted for a proper purpose, as it was substantially similar to the charged conduct and thus probative to show Summers’ identity, intent, motive, and plan for the charged offenses. It was not substantially prejudicial to warrant exclusion under Rule 403, and any concern about unfair prejudice was alleviated by the court’s limiting instruction to the jury.
Summers also argued that the district court’s limiting instruction did not cure any prejudice. Here, the jury was instructed to consider the Rule 404(b) evidence only for the listed purposes, not for propensity; and defense counsel consented and raised no objection to the final proposed jury instruction. Accordingly, the limiting instruction satisfied the Rule 404(b) requirement.
The conviction was affirmed.