United States v. Chang Ru Meng Backman
817 F.3d 662
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Backman was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) for sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion after a Chinese woman was lured to Saipan on false promises, had her documents taken, was confined, and forced into prostitution.
- Jury acquitted Backman on two other counts but convicted on the charge relating to this victim; district court sentenced her to 235 months (high end of Guidelines 188–235 months).
- Backman appealed, arguing errors in jury instructions (causation and mens rea for commerce), insufficient evidence on the commerce element, erroneous exclusion of Rule 412 evidence, and improper application of a 2‑level "vulnerable victim" Guidelines enhancement.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed jury‑instruction objections for plain error, sufficiency of evidence de novo, Rule 412 interpretation de novo but exclusion for abuse of discretion, and affirmed on all issues.
- The court held Burrage and Flores‑Figueroa did not require the challenged instructions: causation is not an element of § 1591, and the jurisdictional commerce phrase carries no mens rea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction: but‑for causation | No separate causation element required by statute; conviction valid without but‑for instruction | Burrage requires but‑for causation instruction for elements that cause harm | Affirmed: Burrage inapplicable; §1591 does not require proof that coercion was but‑for cause of a sex act because commission of a sex act is not an element |
| Jury instruction: mens rea for commerce element | "Knowingly" need not attach to jurisdictional commerce phrase | Flores‑Figueroa requires "knowingly" apply to commerce element | Affirmed: Flores‑Figueroa is contextual; longstanding presumption that jurisdictional commerce element lacks mens rea; "knowingly" modifies the verbs, not the commerce phrase |
| Sufficiency of evidence: commerce effect | Government: de minimis effect suffices; evidence showed foreign travel and customer checks drawn on out‑of‑state bank | Backman: insufficient proof of effect on interstate/foreign commerce | Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, evidence supported effect on foreign/interstate commerce (flight from China; out‑of‑state bank checks) |
| Exclusion under Fed. R. Evid. 412 | Government: defendant failed to meet Rule 412 specificity and procedure; court followed Rule 412(c) | Backman: exclusion deprived opportunity to impeach with later sexual conduct | Affirmed: denial not abuse of discretion—motion was vague, untimely to amend, and prevented required in camera proceedings; exclusion not arbitrary |
| Sentencing: §3A1.1(b)(1) vulnerable‑victim enhancement | Government: victim’s isolation, lack of ties, illiteracy, language barrier, illegal‑status, confinement, and economic pressure made her unusually vulnerable | Backman: TVPA victims often share vulnerabilities; not "unusually" vulnerable relative to typical victims | Affirmed: enhancement proper given number and depth of vulnerabilities (no ties on Saipan, no English, illiterate, effectively confined, extreme economic pressure) |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014) (but‑for causation required where statute penalizes conduct "when death or serious bodily injury results")
- Flores‑Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009) (adverb "knowingly" may apply to subsequent elements depending on statutory context)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- United States v. Hornbuckle, 784 F.3d 549 (9th Cir. 2015) (sex act is not an element of § 1591 conviction)
- United States v. Brooks, 610 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2010) (statute requires awareness of modus operandi that will coerce commercial sex)
- United States v. Stone, 706 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2013) (Flores‑Figueroa is not an inflexible rule; statutory context controls mens rea application)
- United States v. Sawyer, 733 F.3d 228 (7th Cir. 2013) (jurisdictional commerce element presumptively lacks mens rea)