Date: 11-19-2025

Case Style: United States of America v. Robert Wayne Hutton

Case Number: 22-CR-158

Judge: Mary K. Dimke

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (Spokane County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office in Spokane

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Spokane, Washington, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with sexually exploiting a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).

Hutton argued that the videos and images of the victim are not “lascivious” under the statutory definition at 28 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v). The district court, which analyzed the factors set forth in United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d sub nom. United States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1987), did not clearly err in finding that the images were “lascivious,” and thus depicted “sexually explicit conduct” under § 2251(a).

Hutton argued that § 2251(a) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him—that a plain-text reading of § 2251(a)
does not convey that the statute prohibits secretly filming a nude child in her bathroom. The panel held that this court’s precedent forecloses this argument. See United States v. Laursen, 847 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2017); Wiegand, 812 F.2d at 1243; United States v. Mendez, 35 F.4th 1219, 1221 (9th Cir. 2022).

Hutton argued that he did not “use” the victim when he filmed her without her knowledge—that because he did not
cause the victim to engage in sexually explicit conduct, he cannot be guilty of violating § 2251(a). The panel held that
this court’s precedent forecloses this argument. See Laursen, 847, F.3d at 1030, 1032; Mendez, 35 F.4th at 1221;
United States v. Boam, 69 F.4th 601, 608 (9th Cir. 2023). The panel rejected Hutton’s argument that Dubin v.
United States, 599 U.S. 110 (2023), which interpreted the federal aggravated-identity-theft statute, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1028A(a)(1), effectively overruled this court’s “use” cases. Dubin’s holding on the meaning of “use” in
§ 1028A(a)(1) has little bearing on this court’s holdings on the meaning of “use” in the context of § 2251(a).

Outcome: The Defendant was found guilty.

Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: