United States v. Murphy, 942 F.3d 73

Defendant Nicholas Murphy (age 25) traveled from Rhode Island to Connecticut and had sexual intercourse with a person he was told was 16; the victim was actually 14.
Federal indictment charged Murphy under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) for traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in "illicit sexual conduct," with the alleged underlying offense defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a) (sexual abuse of a minor aged 12–15 with a ≥4‑year age difference).
Murphy pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement and allocuted that he believed the victim was 16; neither the plea agreement nor the plea colloquy defined "illicit sexual conduct" or informed him that knowledge that the victim was under 16 was an element.
The parties and the district court proceeded on the assumption that § 2423(b) (as charged with § 2243(a)) did not require knowledge of the victim's age; Murphy was sentenced to 60 months concurrent with a state sentence.
On appeal the Second Circuit held that § 2423(b), as charged with § 2243(a), requires proof that the defendant intended to engage in sex with someone he knew (or believed) to be under 16; because Murphy consistently stated he believed the victim was 16, the plea lacked a factual basis and Rule 11 plain error occurred—conviction vacated and case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2423(b) (with § 2243(a) as the underlying offense) requires proof the defendant knew/believed the intended victim was under 16	Govt: Knowledge of victim's specific age is not an element; §2243(a) dispenses with scienter as to age; at most proof the victim was under 18 suffices	Murphy: Mens rea as to the victim's being under 16 is an element; he believed victim was 16 so cannot be guilty	Court: Knowledge/belief that intended victim was under 16 is an essential element; govt's contrary readings rejected
Whether the district court plainly erred under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 by not informing Murphy of the age element and by accepting a plea without a factual basis	Govt: No plain error; Murphy understood the charge and the record provided an adequate factual basis	Murphy: Court failed to ensure he understood the nature of the charge and no factual basis shows he intended to have sex with someone he knew was under 16	Court: Plain error found on both Rule 11(b)(1)(G) and Rule 11(b)(3) grounds; conviction vacated and remanded

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1994) (presumption that crimes require knowledge of facts making conduct illegal)
United States v. X‑Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1994) (intent can turn otherwise innocent interstate conduct into criminal conduct)
United States v. Han, 230 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000) (§ 2423(b) requires interstate travel with criminal intent)
United States v. Langley, 549 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2008) (§ 2423(b) requires belief that intended victim is under 16)
United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) (same interpretation of § 2423(b))
United States v. Stokes, 726 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2013) (same interpretation of § 2423(b))
United States v. Buttrick, 432 F.3d 373 (1st Cir. 2005) (same interpretation of § 2423(b))
United States v. Lloyd, 901 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2018) (plain‑error standard applied to Rule 11 review)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (U.S. 1969) (Rule 11 inquiry must be substantive and case‑specific)
United States v. Maher, 108 F.3d 1513 (2d Cir. 1997) (Rule 11 requires court assurance defendant understands nature of the charge)