United States v. Hansen

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: 24-4119
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-4119 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 08/19/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 19, 2025 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-4119 (D.C. No. 2:19-CR-00053-HCN-1) ZACHARY MATTHEW HANSEN, (D. Utah)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

A jury found Defendant Zachary Hansen guilty of possessing child

pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Hansen then moved

for a new trial, arguing that the district court admitted an excessive number

of pornographic images during trial in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence

403. The district court denied Hansen’s motion and sentenced him to 96

*After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(f); Tenth Circuit Rule 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 24-4119 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 08/19/2025 Page: 2

months’ imprisonment followed by lifetime supervised release. Hansen

timely appealed. On appeal, Hansen was appointed counsel. Now before us

is appointed counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw. Hansen has not

responded.

Under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appointed

defense counsel may move to withdraw from representation “if counsel finds

[the defendant’s] case to be wholly frivolous[] after a conscientious

examination[.]” Before doing so, appointed counsel must submit “a brief

referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.”

Id. The defendant then has an opportunity to respond. Id. At the end of this

process, the court decides whether the defendant’s appeal is wholly

frivolous. Id.

Hansen’s counsel identifies a single issue that arguably supports

appeal: the district court’s denial of Hansen’s motion for new trial based on

an alleged Rule 403 violation.

Rule 403 permits a trial court to “exclude relevant evidence if its

probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair

prejudice.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. The trial court has “broad discretion” when

making Rule 403 decisions. United States v. Hay, 95 F.4th 1304, 1319 (10th

Cir. 2024) (quoting United States v. Poole, 929 F.2d 1476, 1482 (10th Cir.

1991)). Accordingly, we review such decisions under the deferential abuse

2 Appellate Case: 24-4119 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 08/19/2025 Page: 3

of discretion standard and reverse only if a decision was “arbitrary,

capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable[.]” United States v. Silva,

889 F.3d 704, 709 (10th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

At issue in the Rule 403 analysis are five still images and seven videos

that the district court admitted into evidence even though Hansen had

stipulated to several elements of the charge against him. The five still

images each depicted child pornography. Six of the videos depicted child

pornography. The government played ten seconds of each of those videos.

The seventh video depicted the entire collection of photographic images on

Hansen’s phone, approximately 10,500 in total. Of these images,

approximately 220 depicted child pornography. The government played this

entire video to the jury.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this

evidence. Since Hansen was facing a child pornography charge, the

admitted evidence – which depicts child pornography – forms “the gist of

the government’s [] case against” Hansen. United States v. Schene, 543 F.3d

627, 643 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Campos, 221 F.3d 1143,

1149 (10th Cir. 2000)). “The government was entitled to prove its case” with

that evidence despite Hansen’s stipulation to some elements. Id. Moreover,

Hansen did not stipulate to the element of knowledge. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) (criminalizing “knowing[]” possession). The admitted

3 Appellate Case: 24-4119 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 08/19/2025 Page: 4

evidence was therefore relevant to show that Hansen knowingly possessed

child pornography. Schene, 543 F.3d at 643. Given this relevance, the

district court reasonably concluded that any prejudice did not substantially

outweigh probative value, especially since the volume of pornographic

material presented to the jury was not high.

Having reviewed the entire record, we agree with appointed counsel

that Hansen’s appeal from his conviction would be frivolous. We therefore

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

Motion of appointed counsel to withdraw is GRANTED.

Appeal DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge