Background
Andrew Boltz met 16-year-old A.S. on Omegle when he was about 25. Their communications moved to texting, calls, and Snapchat, where Boltz repeatedly requested sexually explicit photographs and videos despite knowing A.S. was a minor. Over approximately two weeks, they exchanged more than 8,500 communications. A jury convicted Boltz of four counts of sexually exploiting a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), as well as receipt of child pornography, which he did not challenge on appeal.
At trial, the district court barred Boltz from eliciting evidence that A.S. had sent sexually explicit material to other men. It also admitted short video clips in which Boltz acknowledged grooming another minor, allowed A.S.’s mother to testify about A.S.’s personality and vulnerability, and later rejected Boltz’s claim that the government had failed to preserve potentially exculpatory Snapchat messages.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It held that evidence of A.S.’s sexually explicit communications with other men fell within Federal Rule of Evidence 412 because it concerned her sexual predisposition, sexual behavior, or both. Boltz failed to follow Rule 412’s advance-notice requirements, and exclusion did not violate his right to present a complete defense because the evidence was not central to innocence: whether A.S. sent material to others did not negate the evidence that Boltz induced or enticed her to produce explicit material for him.
The court also upheld admission of Boltz’s interview statements about another minor under Rule 404(b). After the defense suggested someone else may have used Boltz’s phone or appeared in the images, the prior conduct became probative of identity because it involved a distinctive, similar sequence of meeting minors on Omegle, moving communications to Snapchat, using similar manipulation tactics, and exchanging explicit images. The sanitized clips and limiting instruction reduced the risk of unfair prejudice. A.S.’s mother’s testimony was relevant to whether A.S. was susceptible to inducement or enticement, and the missing-message claim failed because Boltz did not show government bad faith.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 412 bars evidence that a minor victim sent sexually explicit material to others when offered to suggest she voluntarily did the same with the defendant.
- Distinctive prior conduct may be admitted under Rule 404(b) to prove identity after the defense suggests someone else committed the charged acts.
- Loss of potentially useful evidence does not establish a due-process violation without proof that the government acted in bad faith.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the federal rape shield broadly to digital sexual conduct, including explicit photographs, videos, and online communications. It also confirms that a defendant who advances an identity theory may open the door to otherwise inflammatory prior-act evidence when distinctive similarities connect the defendant to the charged communications.
For practitioners, the opinion underscores the importance of complying with Rule 412’s pretrial procedures and of evaluating how cross-examination may make identity-related Rule 404(b) evidence admissible.