United States Eighth Circuit

Defendant's conviction for producing child pornography is affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that defendant produced child pornography; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury that knowledge of the victim's age is an element of section 2251(a); 3) district court did not err in ruling that defendant could not raise his lack of knowledge of the boy's age as an affirmative defense; and 4) defendant's argument that section 2251(a) exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause is without merit.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/31/2009
• Published 08/31/2009

Judges

• SMITH, Circuit Judge., Before SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and LIMBAUGH, District Judge.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Douglas Olson, AFPD, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Tracy Lynne Perzel, AUSA, argued, Carol M. Kayser, AUSA, on the brief, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee.