Establishing Reasonable Temporal Proximity in Federal Indictments

Introduction

United States v. Chisholm, No. 24-7007 (10th Cir. Apr. 9, 2025), addresses an important threshold in federal criminal prosecutions: how closely the date of alleged criminal conduct must align with the date “on or about” which an offense is charged in the indictment. The defendant, Paula Amber Chisholm, a member of the Muscogee Creek Nation, stood accused under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 of physically abusing her grandson, K.C., in Indian Country. The critical issue on appeal was whether the government produced evidence “reasonably near” the indictment’s specified window (November 20–December 5, 2019) to sustain a jury verdict of child abuse.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit affirmed Chisholm’s conviction. It held that when an indictment specifies a date “on or about” which an offense occurs, the government must present evidence that the defendant’s conduct fell within a period “reasonably near” that date, but need not prove the precise day. Here, medical and testimonial evidence showed no injuries before Thanksgiving 2019, followed by fresh bruises and the child’s account of abuse immediately after the break. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this timeline was sufficient to permit a jury to find Chisholm abused K.C. within the indicted window.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• United States v. Ellis, 868 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir. 2017):

Established that an indictment listing specific dates requires evidence of conduct “reasonably near” those dates. Quoting Charley, the court underscored that exact precision is not mandated.

• United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1999):

Recognized the principle that, absent a strict date, “on or about” permits some temporal flexibility.

• Kokotan v. United States, 408 F.2d 1134 (10th Cir. 1969):

Described how proof within “a few weeks” of an indicted date satisfies the requirement.

• Ledbetter v. United States, 170 U.S. 606 (1898):

An early U.S. Supreme Court authority supporting “on or about” language.

• United States v. Castillo, 140 F.3d 874 (10th Cir. 1998):

Upheld conviction for June offense based on victim’s testimony that it happened “in the summer,” illustrating flexibility when broadly consistent with the time frame.

• United States v. Simpson, 845 F.3d 1039 (10th Cir. 2017):

Distinguished because that case turned on an omitted intent element under new law, not the temporal proximity of evidence to an indictment date.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied a de novo review to the sufficiency of evidence and framed the question: could any rational juror, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, find the abuse occurred within the indicted window? It reaffirmed that “reasonably near” does not demand exactitude—only that the proofs fall within a few weeks of the charged dates. Here, key facts included:

• The last prior medical examination (September 2019) revealed no abuse.
• Photographs from October and early November showed no fresh injuries.
• After the Thanksgiving break (Nov. 23–Dec. 1), K.C. returned with fresh bruises, contusions, and a “glial injury.”
• K.C. and a social worker both heard him say “Aunt Paula” hurt him in the days immediately after Thanksgiving.

Because the government tied the onset of injuries and the child’s account directly to the post-Thanksgiving period—squarely within the November 20–December 5 window—the evidence satisfied the “reasonably near” requirement.

Impact

United States v. Chisholm clarifies for trial courts and prosecutors:

• How to draft indictments with date ranges and “on or about” language.
• The evidentiary burden to show temporal proximity to those dates.
• How courts will assess sufficiency challenges under Rule 29 when dates are specified.

Future prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 and other statutes will rely on this precedent to ensure that evidence—medical records, witness testimony, or other documentation—demonstrates abuse (or other charged conduct) occurred “reasonably near” the alleged timeframe.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• “On or About” in an Indictment: A phrase that allows some flexibility around the exact date of an offense, recognizing that investigations may not pinpoint the precise moment of wrongdoing.
• Reasonably Near: Not an exact synonym for “exact date,” but generally interpreted as “within a few weeks” of the date specified.
• Sufficiency of Evidence (Rule 29): A post-trial motion arguing that, even taking all evidence in the prosecution’s favor, no rational juror could have convicted. The court views the record in the light most favorable to the government, asking whether every element was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

United States v. Chisholm refines the established rule for temporal proximity in federal indictments. It confirms that prosecutors must tie proof of criminal conduct to the dates charged, but they need only demonstrate that the offense occurred “reasonably near” those dates—broadly construed to allow a few weeks of leeway. This decision will guide both prosecutorial practice in drafting indictments and defense strategy in challenging the sufficiency of timing evidence for convictions under statutes nationwide.