Background
Todd Mumma was convicted by a jury of sexual exploitation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The evidence showed that he placed a hidden camera disguised as an iPhone-style charger in his stepdaughter M.V.’s bedroom and recorded her undressing or nude. He categorized recordings, created still images focused on intimate areas, and stored images in a concealed phone application.
The district court sentenced Mumma to 252 months in prison, ordered $71,200 in restitution, and entered a $160,000 personal forfeiture money judgment based on proceeds from the sale of his home, where the offense occurred. Mumma challenged the indictment, the forfeiture procedure, and the restitution calculation.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Mumma’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The indictment tracked the applicable statutory language, alleged the relevant jurisdictional predicate and elements, narrowed the statutory alternatives to those pertinent to the charged conduct, and specified the approximate time and place of the offense. It did not need to name the victim or describe in greater factual detail how Mumma used or employed the minor.
The court also affirmed the forfeiture order. Assuming without deciding that Rule 32.2(b)(5)(A) required the district court to ask whether the parties wanted the jury to decide whether the home was forfeitable, any error was harmless. The home’s connection to the offense was uncontested and overwhelming because the hidden cameras were placed in M.V.’s bedroom there. But the court vacated the restitution order: the parties agreed it included an apparent $2,500 arithmetic overstatement, and the issue was not moot despite payment and disbursement because a corrected order could support an offset in M.V.’s pending civil case. On remand, the district court must also clarify whether a home down payment was improperly included as temporary-housing expense.
Key Takeaways
- An indictment tracking a statute can provide constitutionally adequate notice when it alleges all elements and relevant statutory alternatives.
- Any failure to follow Rule 32.2’s jury-inquiry procedure was harmless where the nexus between the home and the offense was indisputable.
- A paid and disbursed restitution award may remain appealable when correcting it could provide meaningful relief in related civil litigation.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Rule 32.2 forfeiture-procedure errors are subject to harmless-error review and applies a nonconstitutional harmlessness standard to an unsubmitted property-nexus determination. It also underscores that restitution calculations must be accurate and that post-payment consequences can preserve appellate jurisdiction over an asserted overpayment.