## Facts

- Serefino Castillo was prosecuted in federal court for sexual abuse offenses committed against two of his daughters on the Navajo Reservation.
- The indictment alleged four incidents (three involving N.C. and one involving C.C.), and each incident produced two counts: sexual abuse (18 U.S.C. § 2242(1)) and sexual abuse of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 2243(a)), for eight total counts.
- At trial, the government offered testimony describing additional, uncharged acts of sexual abuse against both girls.
- The district court admitted the uncharged-acts testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 414 (other child-molestation offenses in child-molestation prosecutions).
- The jury convicted Castillo on all eight counts.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 414 was in effect at the time of Castillo’s trial.
2. Whether Rule 414 is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment (due process and equal protection) or the Eighth Amendment.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting Rule 414 evidence without an adequately explained Federal Rule of Evidence 403 balancing on the record.

## Decision

- The court held that Rule 414 was in effect at the time of trial.
- The court rejected facial constitutional challenges to Rule 414 under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.
- The court remanded for the district court to provide an adequate explanation of its Rule 403 determination regarding the Rule 414 evidence.
- The court rejected Castillo’s remaining appellate claims as providing no basis for reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 414 permits admission of evidence that a defendant committed other child-molestation offenses in a child-molestation prosecution, including for propensity.
- Rule 414 does not eliminate Rule 403; trial courts must weigh probative value against dangers such as unfair prejudice and must make that analysis reviewable on the record.
- Rule 414 does not violate due process when applied with Rule 403 safeguards and without changing the elements of the charged offenses or the government’s burden of proof.
- Differential evidentiary treatment of child-molestation cases under Rule 414 survives equal protection review if rationally related to legitimate legislative objectives.
- The Eighth Amendment does not invalidate Rule 414 because it governs admissibility of evidence rather than the type or length of punishment.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld the applicability and constitutionality of Rule 414 in Castillo’s child-molestation prosecution but remanded for a fuller, reviewable explanation of the district court’s Rule 403 balancing for the propensity evidence, leaving the convictions otherwise intact pending the limited remand.


United States v. Castillo, 140 F.3d 874 (10th Cir. 1998)