USA v. Larsen

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC LARSEN
Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cr-00044-SLG-DMS
ORDER REGARDING RULE 29 MOTION
Before the Court are two Rule 29 motions for judgment of acquittal. After
the government rested at trial, defendant Eric Larsen made a motion for a
judgment of acquittal, and the Court reserved ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 29(b).1 At Docket 138 is Mr. Larsen’s post-verdict Motion for
Judgment of Acquittal. The government filed a response in opposition at Docket
141.
This case was tried to the Court, which found Mr. Larsen guilty of the single
count of Attempted Exploitation of a Minor on February 24, 2021.2 Mr. Larsen
asserts that, even excluding his testimony and viewing the remaining evidence in
the light most favorable to the government, “no rational trier of fact could have
1 Docket 125 at 2 (amended minute entry, day one of trial); Docket 124 at 1 (minute entry, day
two of trial).
2 Docket 127 (minute entry); Docket 140 (transcript).
Case 3:19-cr-00044-SLG-DMS Document 144 Filed 04/12/21 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:19-cr-00044-SLG-DMS, United States v. Larsen
Order Re Rule 29 Motions
Page 2 of 3
found . . . that Mr. Larsen believed he was communicating with a minor for the
purposes of attempting to persuade, induce, entice or coerce them into sexual
activity” beyond a reasonable doubt.3
Pursuant to Rule 29, the Court must decide the motions for judgments of
acquittal “on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.”4
Because the defense presented evidence at trial, the Court considers only the
government’s case-in-chief when ruling on the mid-trial Rule 29 motion and
considers the entire record when ruling on the post-verdict Rule 29 motion. For
both motions, the Court assesses the evidence to determine whether it was
sufficient to sustain a conviction.5 The evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction
if, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, ‘any rational
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offenses charged
beyond a reasonable doubt.’”6 The “evidence is insufficient to support a verdict
where mere speculation, rather than reasonable inference, supports the
government's case.”7 The same sufficiency-of-the-evidence test applies in both
jury and bench trials.8
3 Docket 138 at 1.
4 Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(b).
5 Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a).
6 United States v. Rosales, 516 F.3d 749, 751–52 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Hinton,
222 F.3d 664, 669 (9th Cir. 2000)).
7 United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
8 United States v. Doe, 136 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. Mayberry, 913
Case 3:19-cr-00044-SLG-DMS Document 144 Filed 04/12/21 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:19-cr-00044-SLG-DMS, United States v. Larsen
Order Re Rule 29 Motions
Page 3 of 3
“In a bench trial, the judge acting as the trier of both fact and law implicitly
rules on the sufficiency of the evidence by rendering a verdict of guilty.”9 Thus, for
the reasons stated on the record during its verdict on February 24, 2021, the Court
finds that there was sufficient evidence, both in the government’s case-in-chief and
in the record as a whole, to support the conviction.
In light of the foregoing, Mr. Larsen’s mid-trial Rule 29 motion is DENIED;
Mr. Larsen’s post-verdict Rule 29 motion at Docket 138 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 12th day of April, 2021, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
F.2d 719, 721 (9th Cir. 1990)).
9 United States v. Atkinson, 990 F.2d 501, 503 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc).
Case 3:19-cr-00044-SLG-DMS Document 144 Filed 04/12/21 Page 3 of 3