083354P.pdf   10/26/2009  United States  v.  Joseph E. Espinosa, Sr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  08-3354
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
   Criminal Case - Conviction. Conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of
   victim T was supported by sufficient evidence, as there was sufficient
   evidence of penetration and district court did not err in denying motion
   for acquittal. Evidence was insufficient to establish abusive sexual
   contact with victim K, as government did not prove victim's age, and
   conviction is reversed. District court did not abuse its discretion in
   denying motion for mistrial based on testimony of psychiatrist; even if
   error, the error was harmless. District court did not abuse its
   discretion in admitting hearsay statements, as statements were presented
   not for the truth of the matter asserted but to show that the witnesses
   had conversations with the victim and the witnesses' subsequent actions.
  
083354P.pdf   09/18/2009  United States  v.  Joseph E. Espinosa, Sr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  08-3354
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
   Criminal case - criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to prove
   penetration or attempted penetration, the first element of aggravated
   sexual abuse, and defendant's conviction for sexual abuse of the victim
   THS is affirmed; however, the government failed to establish the age of 
   victim KHS at the time the alleged offense occurred, and defendant's
   conviction for abusive sexual contact with KHS is reversed; the court
   properly instructed the jury concerning the testimony of a psychiatrist
   who examined THS and testified she was the victim of sexual abuse, and
   the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a
   mistrial on the ground the psychiatrist's statement improperly bolstered
   the victim's testimony; evidentiary challenges rejected.