FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 06 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-30043
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
1:16-cr-00030-SPW-1
v.
MATTHEW STONEY OLSON, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 4, 2019**
Portland, Oregon
Before: GRABER and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,*** Chief District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge
for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
Defendant Matthew Stoney Olson timely appeals his convictions for receipt
of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), and for possession
of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We affirm.
1. The district court neither precluded Defendant’s presentation of his
defense nor abused its discretion in limiting testimony. See United States v.
Lynch, 437 F.3d 902, 913 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (per curiam) (stating that we
review de novo whether a district court’s evidentiary ruling "precludes the
presentation of a defense" but that we review for abuse of discretion limits on
testimony). Defendant claimed that, out of animosity toward him and in an attempt
to frame him, his ex-wife’s boyfriend secretly entered Defendant’s home, accessed
Defendant’s computer, and downloaded the child pornography. To show the
boyfriend’s motive, the court allowed Defendant to present evidence that
Defendant and his ex-wife were involved in a child-custody dispute and that the
dispute generated animosity between Defendant and the boyfriend.
But the district court rejected, as irrelevant and speculative, Defendant’s
attempts to present evidence of the specific reasons for the dispute between
Defendant and the boyfriend: allegations that the boyfriend abused Defendant’s
children. The district court permissibly concluded that Defendant failed to explain
how those allegations would bolster his defense and that, even if the proffered
2
evidence had some probative value, that value was outweighed by confusion of the
issues or the potential to mislead the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403; Holmes v. South
Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 326–27 (2006).
2. Sufficient evidence supported the convictions. See United States v.
Shetler, 665 F.3d 1150, 1163 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that we review de novo the
sufficiency of the evidence). "[V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prosecution," Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), a reasonable
juror could conclude that Defendant, and not an interloper, downloaded and
possessed the images of child pornography found on Defendant’s computer.
Witnesses testified that the computer was used solely by Defendant. Different
videos of child pornography were accessed on different days. Additionally, at the
same time that the perpetrator downloaded and accessed the pornography,
Defendant’s Facebook and Yahoo accounts were in use and messages were sent
from Defendant’s Skype account.
AFFIRMED.
3