History
  • No items yet
midpage
United States v. Harold Davis
711 F. App'x 254
| 6th Cir. | 2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Davis recruited a 17-year-old (D.B.) into a prostitution operation run with his then-girlfriend, using Backpage.com and hotel rooms in Memphis.
  • Police stopped Davis’s car after leaving a hotel, found condoms, lingerie, lubricant, and an ad on Backpage linking Davis’s phone number to photos of Rivera and D.B.
  • D.B. initially gave false identifying information; later investigation established she was seventeen. Davis claimed he believed she was nineteen.
  • A grand jury indicted Davis under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 for sex trafficking a minor (count 1) and § 1952 (count 2); the indictment expressly cited § 1591(c).
  • A jury convicted Davis on both counts; he was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Constructive amendment of indictment Government did not add new elements; indictment cited § 1591(c) Davis: jury instruction letting conviction rest on §1591(c) (reasonable-opportunity substitute for knowledge) constructively amended the indictment No constructive amendment; indictment cited §1591(c) and evidence/instructions tracked that statute
Sufficiency of evidence for §1591(c) (reasonable opportunity to observe) Government: evidence (meeting D.B., photos for Backpage ad, bringing her to hotel and introducing her) supports a reasonable-opportunity finding Davis: disputed he had opportunity/knowledge of her age; claimed she said she was 19 Evidence was sufficient; a rational juror could find Davis had a reasonable opportunity to observe D.B.

Key Cases Cited

  • Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960) (constructive amendment doctrine protects grand jury function)
  • United States v. Kuehne, 547 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2008) (test for constructive amendment: indictment, evidence, instructions, verdict form)
  • United States v. Hynes, 467 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2006) (constructive amendments are per se prejudicial)
  • United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985) (indictment need only set out crime and elements sufficiently)
  • Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Harold Davis
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Date Published: Oct 3, 2017
Citation: 711 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: 17-5010
Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.