State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis
881 N.W.2d 531
| Minn. | 2016Background
- Between 2008–2013, Antonio Washington‑Davis participated in a family-run prostitution operation centered at his uncle’s St. Paul house: photographing women, posting ads, transporting women to out‑calls, and collecting proceeds.
- Five women were implicated; four testified. Specific acts included taking photos, posting ads, driving women to clients, and soliciting women into prostitution.
- Washington‑Davis was charged with six counts of solicitation/promotion of prostitution and one conspiracy count; convicted by a jury and sentenced (sentence issue not before the Court of Appeals’ affirmance here).
- He raised a facial First Amendment overbreadth challenge to Minn. Stat. § 609.322, subd. 1a(1)–(2) (criminalizing solicitation/promotion of prostitution), arguing it could criminalize solicitation for lawful adult pornography production.
- He also challenged accomplice‑liability jury instructions as plain error and argued insufficiency of circumstantial evidence as to aiding/abetting solicitation of two women (C.B. and T.B.).
Issues
| Issue | Washington‑Davis’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minn. Stat. § 609.322, subd. 1a(1)–(2) is facially overbroad under the First Amendment | Statute reaches protected speech (e.g., recruiting consenting adults for porn) and thus is substantially overbroad | Statute targets speech integral to criminal conduct (prostitution) and excludes recruiting for lawful film production unless purpose is sexual gratification | Not substantially overbroad; statute limited to speech integral to crimes and any overbreadth is speculative and should be addressed as‑applied |
| Whether erroneous accomplice‑liability jury instruction warranted reversal (plain‑error review) | Instruction failed to explain ‘‘intentionally aiding’’; prejudicial | Error conceded but other instructions required a higher mens rea, reducing prejudice | Plain error occurred but did not affect substantial rights; no new trial required |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict for aiding/abetting solicitation of C.B. and T.B. | Argues he was only passively present; insufficient to show intentional aid | Jury could infer intent from joint actions: picking up women, discussing money, offering photos/ads, prior role in scheme | Sufficient circumstantial evidence to support convictions; passive‑presence hypothesis unreasonable |
| Remedy / scope for pornography producers | (Implicit) statute could chill lawful porn industry activity | Such applications are speculative; statute requires proof the sexual acts were for performers’ sexual gratification (not for film production) | If dispute arises, it should be litigated via an as‑applied challenge rather than facial invalidation |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. United States, 553 U.S. 285 (recognizes criminal‑solicitation exception to First Amendment overbreadth)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (facial overbreadth doctrine; substantiality relative to statute’s legitimate sweep)
- Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (speech integral to criminal conduct is unprotected)
- Machholz v. State, 574 N.W.2d 415 (Minn. 1998) (facial First Amendment challenges by criminal defendants)
- Melchert‑Dinkel v. State, 844 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 2014) (de novo review of constitutional challenges)
- Milton v. State, 821 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2012) (accomplice‑liability instruction must explain knowing role)
- Bahtuoh v. State, 840 N.W.2d 804 (Minn. 2013) (erroneous accomplice instruction cured by other mens‑rea‑specific instructions)
- McAllister v. State, 862 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. 2015) (two‑step test for sufficiency of circumstantial evidence)