United States v. Jason Strubberg
929 F.3d 969
| 8th Cir. | 2019Background
- In Jan. 2016 law enforcement arrested Jason Strubberg in a motel parking lot during a sting in which undercover agents posed as a mother (“Kathy”) and her purported 14‑year‑old daughter (“Abby”).
- Strubberg exchanged explicit texts with the undercover "mother," repeatedly proposing sexual activity with the minor and arranging a rendezvous; he also searched the internet about sex with minors and purchased condoms before driving to the motel.
- At trial Strubberg admitted he initially intended to have sex with the girl but testified he later decided it was illegal and went only to explain his change of mind to Kathy and to seek sex with the adult.
- A jury convicted Strubberg of attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); he was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment and five years supervised release with special conditions.
- On appeal Strubberg challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) denial of an entrapment instruction and the district court’s "deceptive investigation" jury instruction, and (3) seven special conditions of supervised release; the Eighth Circuit affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Strubberg's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence (attempt to entice a minor) | He abandoned criminal intent before meeting and therefore did not take a substantial step | Texts, internet searches, purchase of condoms, travel to motel, and other acts show intent and substantial step | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to support attempt conviction |
| Entitlement to entrapment instruction | Government induced the crime; court should have instructed jury on entrapment | Defendant initiated and repeatedly drove sexual discussions; no evidence of government implantation of criminal design | Affirmed: no entrapment instruction warranted |
| Jury instruction on deceptive investigative techniques | Instruction improperly discouraged jurors from considering deception when evaluating credibility and burden of proof | Instruction permissible to warn jurors not to let distaste for undercover tactics decide verdict; harmless error if any | Affirmed: did not warrant reversal given overwhelming evidence (court declined to endorse instruction generally) |
| Special conditions of supervised release (computer, contact, residence restrictions) | Conditions are overbroad, vague, and lack individualized findings under §3583(d) | Conditions reasonably relate to offense, protect public, and are modifiable by court/probation | Affirmed under plain‑error review: not obviously impermissible; record supports conditions or allows later modification |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Young, 613 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2010) (standards for sufficiency and substantial‑step analysis in enticement cases)
- United States v. Spurlock, 495 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2007) (attempt and substantial‑step guidance for arranging sex with a minor)
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988) (entrapment requires government inducement and lack of predisposition)
- Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958) (entrapment occurs when conduct is product of government creative activity)
- United States v. Pierson, 544 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2008) (elements of enticement under §2422(b))
- United States v. Mims, 812 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2016) (substantial‑step and context for actions toward consummation)
- United States v. Myers, 575 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2009) (acts like travel and possession of condoms support substantial step)
- United States v. Patten, 397 F.3d 1100 (8th Cir. 2005) (driving to meeting place is relevant to substantial step)
- United States v. Gamache, 156 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998) (entrapment analysis where government initiated sex‑with‑minor idea)
- United States v. McGill, 754 F.3d 452 (7th Cir. 2014) (entrapment where undercover repeatedly pressured reluctant defendant)
- United States v. McKnight, 665 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2011) (upholding a similar instruction about undercover/deceptive investigative techniques)
- United States v. Bender, 566 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding computer/internet restrictions tied to sexual‑minor offenses)
- United States v. Crume, 422 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2005) (upholding restriction barring defendant from places where children congregate)
- United States v. Thompson, 888 F.3d 347 (8th Cir. 2018) (plain‑error review of supervised‑release conditions and requirement of individualized findings)