United States v. Philip M. Sebolt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that even where evidence is highly prejudicial, it is not necessarily unfairly prejudicial
• explaining that “[p]rior instances of sexual misconduct with a child victim may establish a defendant’s sexual interest in children and thereby serve as evidence of the defendant’s motive to commit a charged offense involving the sexual exploitation of children.”
• affirming trial court’s admission of prior bad acts evidence, but finding a pair of children’s underwear was unduly prejudicial and was wrongfully admitted
• affirming, in a case charging child pornography offenses, the ad- mission of Rule 404(b) evidence that the defendant had molested a young male relative and driven to another state intending to have sex with a minor female
• “[T]he molestations and the evidence supporting the statutory criminal elements were similar in character, i.e., establishing [his] sexually deviant mental state . . . .”
• evidence demonstrating \sexual interest in children ... serve[s] as evidence of the defendant's motive to commit a charged offense involving the sexual exploitation of children\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).