948 F.3d 936
8th Cir.2020Background:
- Perkins met a mother and her two children while working in Joplin, MO; after moving away in 2013 he made frequent non-work visits to Joplin (at least 56 hotel stays between 2014–2016).
- During visits, Perkins spent money on the children and the children often stayed in his hotel room.
- In Dec. 2016 the mother found video evidence on Perkins’s iPad showing Perkins sexually abusing Jane Doe (a child under 12); Perkins admitted the abuse and that he had shared videos/images with his friend Don Blankenship.
- Forensics recovered videos and numerous sexually explicit text messages between Perkins and Blankenship from May–Oct. 2016 discussing Perkins’s interactions with Jane Doe (e.g., saying he was “hooked” and having “withdrawals”).
- Parties stipulated Perkins crossed a state line, engaged in sexual acts with Jane Doe after crossing, and the victim was under 12; the sole contested issue was whether Perkins crossed the state line with intent to engage in sexual acts with the minor.
- After a bench trial Perkins was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c); he appealed the sufficiency of the evidence on the intent element and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Perkins crossed a state line with intent to engage in sexual acts with a child <12 under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) | Texts, videos, admissions, and travel pattern show sexual activity was one motivating purpose for trips to Joplin and thus support intent at crossing | Texts were sent while already in Missouri, so they do not prove Perkins’s intent at the moment he crossed the state line; evidence insufficient | Affirmed: intent may be inferred from all circumstances; sexual purpose need only be one motivating purpose and texts, admissions, videos, and travel history permit a reasonable factfinder to infer intent at crossing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wright, 739 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on judgment of acquittal)
- United States v. Duffin, 844 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2016) (illicit behavior must be one of the purposes motivating interstate transportation under § 2423(a))
- United States v. Cole, 262 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2001) (intent may be inferred from circumstances and defendant statements)
- United States v. Hoffman, 626 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2010) (discussing non-incidental sexual purpose in interstate-transportation context)
- Reamer v. United States, 318 F.2d 43 (8th Cir. 1963) (intent inference from statements and circumstances)
- Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant, 825 F.3d 247 (5th Cir. 2016) (same intent standard applies to § 2241(c) and § 2423(a): sexual purpose need only be one motivating purpose)
- United States v. McGuire, 627 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2010) (sexual purpose may be one of multiple purposes)
- United States v. Farley, 607 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2010) (same)
- United States v. Cryar, 232 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir. 2000) (same)