061693P.pdf   04/09/2007  United States  v.  Ronald Gene Kenyon
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  06-1693
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Smith and Bowman, Circuit
   Judges]
   Criminal case - criminal law. See the Court's prior opinion in the case -
   U.S. v. Kenyon, 393 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir. 2005). District court did not err
   in admitting victim's testimony concerning defendant's acts of violence,
   as the district court gave a limiting instruction and defendant was
   allowed to cross-examine her to clarify the testimony; no error in
   admitting expert testimony concerning the various characteristics of
   abused children; non-constitutional evidentiary error in permitting
   treating physician's assistant to testify as to the victim's hearsay
   statements was harmless; district court did not err in refusing to allow
   defendant to cross-examine the child-victim about false allegations of
   sexual abuse she may have made against a classmate and a relative, as the
   evidence that the child had made these statements was weak and there
   was no showing that the statements, even if made, were part of a scheme
   involving the accusations against defendant; other claims of evidentiary
   error rejected; district court acted properly when the government made
   comments during closing argument concerning defendant's failure to call
   witnesses, and there was no ground for a mistrial; government's
   comments during closing argument "Can you really believe that an eleven
   year old... is going to be able to concoct a story that goes through the
   whole legal system, with all the detail that you heard," while improper,
   did not require a new trial; evidence was insufficient to support
   conviction on second count alleging sexual abuse by contact between
   defendant's penis and the victim's mouth; district court erred in refusing
   to give an instruction on intoxication and drug use as a potential defense
   to the specific intent element of the count charging contact between the
   defendant's penis and the victim's vulva as there was some evidence that
   defendant committed the act while he was heavily intoxicated or "blanked
   out;" for sentencing purposes, there was sufficient to evidence to show
   defendant had supervisory control over the victim, and the district court
   did not commit clear error in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines
   Sec. 2A3.1(b)(3)(A). Judge Smith, concurring in part and dissenting in
   part.