ANNOTATIONSANDCOMMENTS
18U.S.C.§2422(b)provides:
Whoever,usingthemailoranyfacilityormeansofinterstateorforeign commerce, orwithinthespecialmaritimeandterritorialjurisdiction ofthe UnitedStatesknowingly persuades,induces,entices,orcoercesany individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitutionor anysexualactivityforwhichanypersoncanbechargedwith acriminal offense,orattempts todoso,shallbefinedunderthistitleand imprisonednotlessthan10yearsorforlife.
MaximumPenalty:Life imprisonmentandapplicablefine. Minimumsentenceisten(10) yearsimprisonmentandapplicablefine.18U.S.C.§3559provides foramandatory lifesentenceforrepeatedsexoffensesagainst children.
Adefendantcanalsobeguiltyifhewillfully attempts,viathemailorafacilityof interstatecommerce,topersuade,induce,enticeor coerceanyoneundereighteenyearsof agetoengageinprostitutionorsexualactivity.Inthatcircumstance,thecourtshould givetheappropriatechargeonattempt.
18U.S.C.§2260Aprovides foranenhancedsentence forpersonsrequired toregisteras sex offenders.18 U.S.C.§ 2426 providesthat the maximumsentencefor a repeat offenderunderchapter117istwicethetermotherwiseprovidedbythechapter.18U.S.C.§ 3559 providesfor mandatorylife imprisonmentfor repeatedsex offenses againstchildren.
Thedefendantneednotcommunicate directlywiththeminor;itissufficientifthe defendantinduces(orattemptstoinduce)theminorviaanadultintermediary.United Statesv.Hornaday,392F.3d1306,1310-11(11thCir.2004);UnitedStatesv.Murrell,368F.3d1283,1287(11thCir.2004). InMurrell,theEleventhCircuit alsoapproved“to stimulatetheoccurrenceof;cause”asthedefinitionof “induce.”
TheInternetisaninstrumentalityofinterstatecommerce.UnitedStatesv.Hornaday,392F.3d 1306, 1311 (11th Cir. 2004). Telephones and cellular telephonesare instrumentalitiesofinterstatecommerce,evenwhentheyareusedintrastate.United Statesv.Evans,476F.3d1176,1180-81(11thCir.2007).
UnitedStatesv.Evans, 476 F.3d1176 (11th Cir. 2007)involvedadefendantwho didnot inducetheminorintohavingsexwithhim;rather,heinducedtheminorintobeinga prostitute, andhewasherpimp.Thejuryinstructionsaswrittencontemplateafact situationwherethedefendant attemptstoinduceaminortohavesexwithhim,andthey wouldneedtoberewrittenforacaselikeEvans.SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Murrell,368F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting that § 2422(b)prohibits a person from persuadingaminortoengageinsexualconduct,withhimselforwithathirdparty).
Insomecases,thegovernmentmayproceedunderan“aidingandabetting”theory.18U.S.C.§2“permitsonetobefoundguiltyasaprincipalforaidingorprocuringsomeone elsetocommittheoffense.”UnitedStatesv.Hornaday, 392F.3d1306,1312-13(11th Cir.2004)(notingthatindictmentneednotmention18U.S.C.§2).Inthosecases,itisappropriateto givean instructiononaidingandabetting.However,itis notappropriatetogive such aninstructionifthetheoryisthat anundercoveragentactedasanintermediary toofferupafictitiousminortothedefendant.Id.at1314.
SeeUnitedStatesv.Daniels, 685F.3d1237,1248(11thCir.2012),cert.denied,133S. Ct.1240(2013),(holdingthatadefendant’sknowledgeofavictim’sageisnotan elementofanoffenseunder§2422(b)); U.S.v.Cox,577F.3d833(7thCir.2009) (holding that 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), a statute which the Committee finds to be substantivelysimilar,doesnotrequiretheGovernmenttoprovethattheDefendantknew thatthevictimwasundertheageof 18).
Theterm“prostitution”isnotdefinedinTitle18.TheSupremeCourthasdefinedthetermasthe“offeringofthebodytoindiscriminatelewdnessforhire.”Clevelandv. UnitedStates,329U.S.14,17(1946).Thetermshouldnotbedefinedbyreference to statelaw,asdoingso wouldmakethetermsuperfluous,sincethestatutealreadypunishes “anysexualactivityforwhichanypersoncanbechargedwithacriminaloffense.”