United States v. Franklin Torres, 894 F.3d 305

Background

Defendant Franklin Torres, in his early 30s, lived with a family that included J.A., a 16‑year‑old boy; Torres took four cell‑phone photos showing J.A. naked and with an erection; one photo was posted to Facebook and all were recovered from Torres’s phone.
One photo shows Torres’s hand tilting J.A.’s penis toward the camera; photos were taken from near J.A.’s knees while J.A. lay on a bed covering his face.
J.A. testified (through an interpreter) that Torres undressed him over his resistance, touched and penetrated him (anal and oral), took the photos despite J.A.’s objections, and lied that he had deleted the images.
Torres was convicted of D.C. first‑degree sexual abuse of a minor and federal counts for producing, possessing, and distributing child pornography (18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252).
On appeal Torres argued (1) insufficient evidence that he induced J.A. to engage in sexually explicit conduct “for the purpose of producing” images (§ 2251), and (2) that a crucial piece of testimony about anal intercourse resulted from an impermissibly leading question.
The D.C. Circuit upheld both convictions: it found sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent to produce images (including the hand positioning, multiple targeted photos, lying about deletion, and later posting) and held the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a limited leading question to clarify a reticent witness.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for § 2251(a) (did Torres induce sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing images?)	Gov't: circumstantial evidence (hand tilting penis, composition of photos, multiple shots, lie about deletion, Facebook posting) supports intent to produce child pornography	Torres: photos could be incidental to sexual abuse; must show photography was the dominant purpose; photos alone are insufficient	Affirmed. Jury could reasonably infer purpose to produce images from photos and conduct surrounding them.
Whether § 2251(a) requires a single dominant purpose for the entire encounter	Gov't: statute requires purpose as to the specific sexually explicit conduct—need only show some acts were induced for the purpose of producing images	Torres: entire encounter should be viewed holistically; Mortensen principle requires dominant purpose across the encounter	Court: held statute permits finding purpose as to particular instances of conduct; need not ascribe one unitary purpose to whole encounter.
Use of post‑event conduct (deception, posting) as evidence of pre‑existing purpose	Gov't: lies about deletion and later posting are probative circumstantial evidence of intent to produce/use images	Torres: post hoc acts insufficient alone; risk of conflating taking a photo with intent to produce porn	Court: such post‑event conduct reinforces but does not solely establish intent; was probative here combined with other evidence.
Admissibility of a leading question eliciting anal‑intercourse testimony	Torres: question was leading on the ultimate issue and prejudicial; requires reversal	Gov't: witness was reticent; limited leading question was necessary to clarify testimony	Affirmed. District court did not abuse discretion permitting a narrowly tailored leading question given witness demeanor and sensitivity of topic.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (interpreting Mann Act "for the purpose of" requirement)
United States v. Palomino‑Coronado, 805 F.3d 127 (4th Cir. 2015) (reversed § 2251 conviction where single deleted photograph did not show purpose to produce)
United States v. Morales‑De Jesús, 372 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2004) (instructions/acts directing poses and breaking off to retrieve equipment indicate purpose to produce)
United States v. Ortiz‑Graulau, 526 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2008) (multiple sexually explicit poses across pictures supports purpose to produce)
United States v. Vega, 826 F.3d 514 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (treating circumstantial evidence and intent inference rules)
United States v. Borda, 848 F.3d 1044 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (discussion of defendant’s heavy burden on sufficiency review)