United States v. Brian Phea
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11040
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Phea was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §1591(a) for trafficking a minor and §1952(a)(3) aiding prostitution; sentences run concurrently: 312 months and 60 months.
- The victim, K.R., was 14 and was recruited online via Tagged.com; she traveled from Houston to Amarillo with Phea.
- In Amarillo, Phea and K.R. had sex; he then moved her to Odessa, where she stayed with prostitutes.
- Phea paid for a room, bought clothes and a phone, and the phone number appeared in a Backpage.com prostitution advertisement.
- K.R. was beaten and tased by Phea when she resisted; later, she performed sex acts for a man from Louisiana whom Phea directed.
- Phea challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, the interstate-commerce nexus, and his sentence on §1591(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supported recklessness as to age under §1591(a). | Phea argues no knowledge or recklessness about age. | Phea contends evidence failed to show knowledge or reckless disregard. | Sufficient evidence supported reckless disregard; jury could consider appearance and conduct. |
| Whether the jury instruction allowed conviction on knowledge of age solely from opportunity to observe. | Phea claims strict-liability via opportunity to observe. | Government contends knowledge not required if opportunity to observe exists. | Charge did not require knowledge of age; no plain error under the circumstances. |
| Whether the interstate-commerce nexus required knowledge that conduct affected interstate commerce. | Phea argues knowledge of the nexus is required per Flores-Figueroa. | Nexus can be satisfied by acts that affect interstate commerce; knowledge not required. | Interstate nexus is an adverbial element; knowledge of its effect not required; evidence supported nexus. |
| Whether prosecutorial statements amounted to reversible error. | Phea asserts improper remarks biased the jury. | Arguments were permissible or cured by instructions. | No reversible error; remarks did not prejudicially affect substantial rights. |
| Whether the new-trial motion was timely; | Untimely under Rule 33(b)(2); district court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (Supreme Court 2009) (knowledge applies to all elements when statutes are read naturally)
- United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2012) (plain-error review for unsettled legal questions)
- Montes v. United States, 602 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2010) (pattern jury instruction and legal standard guidance)
- Whitfield v. United States, 590 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2009) (instruction-approval when consistent with circuit law)