## Facts

- Alvin Ralph Mound was prosecuted in federal court for repeatedly physically and sexually abusing his daughter, T.M., from 1993 (when she was ten) through January 1997, including forced sexual acts and severe physical assaults.
- The government sought to introduce evidence that, in 1987, Mound committed similar sexual abuse against two girls (ages 12 and 16).
- Mound had pleaded guilty to one 1987 sexual-abuse offense; the other alleged 1987 offense was not charged.
- The district court admitted evidence of the 1987 conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and excluded the uncharged 1987 allegation.
- A jury convicted Mound of multiple counts of aggravated sexual abuse and assault, and the court imposed a life sentence.
- On appeal, Mound challenged only the admission of the 1987 conviction under Rule 413.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 413 violates due process by permitting admission of other sexual-assault evidence for propensity purposes.
2. Whether Rule 413 violates equal protection principles under the Fifth Amendment by treating sexual-assault defendants differently from other criminal defendants.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting Mound’s prior conviction under Rule 413 after applying Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions and life sentence.
- Rule 413 was held constitutional as applied subject to Rule 403 constraints; admission of other sexual-assault evidence is not so unfair as to violate due process when screened for unfair prejudice.
- Rule 413 was held consistent with equal protection because it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective in prosecuting sexual offenses.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prior conviction while excluding the uncharged allegation, and it mitigated prejudice through limiting instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence admissible under Rule 413 remains subject to Rule 403; trial courts must weigh probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice while permitting Rule 413 to have meaningful effect.
- A due process challenge to evidentiary rules turns on whether admission is so extremely unfair that it violates fundamental conceptions of justice; longstanding common-law practice does not alone establish a constitutional bar.
- Congress may create targeted evidentiary exceptions to prior-bad-acts limits in sexual-assault cases, provided the resulting procedure remains consistent with due process protections.
- Differential evidentiary treatment for sexual-assault prosecutions is reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny for equal protection purposes and is permissible when rationally connected to legitimate prosecutorial aims.
- In reviewing Rule 413 admissions, appellate courts apply abuse-of-discretion review, giving weight to the trial court’s Rule 403 analysis, reliability considerations (such as a prior conviction), and limiting instructions.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld Rule 413 against due process and equal protection challenges, emphasizing that Rule 403 remains a mandatory safeguard, and it affirmed the district court’s discretionary decision to admit Mound’s prior sexual-assault conviction while excluding an uncharged allegation.


United States v. Mound, 149 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 1998)