Summary
This Eighth Circuit opinion addresses whether a district court erred by refusing to instruct a jury on an affirmative defense of reasonable belief of age in a federal prosecution for enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The court held that while affirmative defenses may relate to whether an offense can properly be charged, the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from the district court's refusal to give the instruction. Consequently, the court affirmed the defendant's conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction on an affirmative defense of reasonable belief of the minor’s age under Arkansas law in a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)
- Whether any error, if found, was prejudicial to the verdict
Holdings
- The appellate court held that the district court’s refusal to give the proposed instruction did not constitute reversible error because the error was not prejudicial.
Key quotations
“The proposed affirmative defense thus would not have undermined the jury’s finding that Ward enticed the twelve‑year‑old minor to engage in sexual activity for which he “can be charged with a criminal offense.”” (-5-)
Factual background
Ward, a 32‑year‑old Michigan resident, solicited a 12‑year‑old girl on Snapchat, misrepresenting his age as 22 and believing she was 17. He exchanged explicit images and traveled to Arkansas to attempt sexual intercourse, which was thwarted by the victim’s parents. He was indicted on nine counts, including an enticement charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
Procedural history
Ward was convicted in the Eastern District of Arkansas of nine federal sexual‑exploitation offenses, including 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). He challenged the district court’s refusal to give a jury instruction on an affirmative defense based on reasonable belief of the minor’s age. The appellate court reviewed the alleged error.