United States v. Kearns
2014 CAAF LEXIS 272
| C.A.A.F. | 2014Background
- Appellant Christopher Kearns, a 22-year-old soldier, had sexual intercourse with K.O., a 15-year-old, while home on leave in Pennsylvania; Kearns knew she was a minor.
- After returning to Fort Bliss, Kearns remained in regular contact with K.O.; K.O. sent explicit photos and they professed affection.
- K.O. falsely told Kearns she had been sexually assaulted by a family member; Kearns later paid a woman to transport K.O. (and another minor) from Pennsylvania to Texas for Kearns to house nearby.
- The transport was interrupted in Texas when police stopped the vehicle and identified the girls as possible runaways; an investigation led to Kearns’s court-martial on multiple charges, including violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) (transportation of a minor with intent that she engage in criminal sexual activity).
- At trial Kearns argued his motive was protective (to remove K.O. from alleged abuse) and that sexual activity was not the dominant purpose; a panel convicted him, and the Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed except for one disorderly conduct charge.
- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted review solely on whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove Kearns had the requisite intent under § 2423(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Kearns transported a minor "with intent" to engage in criminal sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) | Govt: intent may be proven circumstantially; intent need only coincide with crossing state lines and be one of the purposes of travel | Kearns: statute requires that illegal sexual activity be the "dominant/predominant/significant/efficient and compelling" purpose of the transport; alternative protective motive predominated | The court held § 2423(a) requires only that illegal sexual activity be one of the purposes (not merely incidental) of the transport; evidence was sufficient to prove intent and conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Broxmeyer v. United States, 616 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2010) (mens rea must coincide with actus reus of crossing state lines)
- Vargas-Cordon v. United States, 733 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2013) (§ 2423(a) intent need not be proven by actual sexual conduct after transport)
- Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944) (interpreting "for the purpose of" language in Mann Act as "dominant motive")
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (statutory interpretation principles; give effect to clear statutory text)
- United States v. Goodwin, 719 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2013) (§ 2423(a) satisfied where illegal sexual conduct is one of the purposes of transport)
- United States v. Tavares, 705 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 2013) (similar holding that illegal sexual conduct need only be one purpose of travel)