U.S. v. Russell

In prosecution on charge of production of sexually explicit photographs where defendant took pictures displaying genitals of his minor daughters, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting under Rule 404(b) evidence that defendant had inappropriately touched one daughter. Said evidence was admitted to rebut defendant's claim that his purpose in photographing his daughters was related to his family's practice of nudism and to provide different light on defendant's alleged motive. Fact that said alleged touching occurred one to two years prior to creation of charged photographs did not require different result. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's request to present expert testimony on practice of nudism where proposed evidence would not have assisted jury's determination of circumstances under which defendant generated charged photographs.