United States v. Rodney Goodwin
719 F.3d 857
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Goodwin, 48, was convicted by a jury of attempted transportation of a minor with intent to engage in sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a),(e).
- He online-associated with 16–17-year-old J.B. in 2010 and planned her travel from North Dakota to Texas for sexual activity.
- Goodwin financed and guided the plan (bus schedule, Green Dot card, prepaid phone) and discussed how the trip would unfold; J.B. testified to a plan to meet and have sex in Texas.
- J.B. traveled to Bismarck/Fargo area but could not complete purchases; she eventually returned home after the plan faltered.
- A DHS agent testified Goodwin intended a sexual relationship with J.B.; the government argued multiple theories under § 2423(a).
- Goodwin moved for acquittal at the close of the government’s case; the district court denied; he appealed, challenging sufficiency and jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted transport | Goodwin contends no substantial step toward transport and no intent to transport. | Government shows substantial direction/control and intent to transport. | Evidence supports attempted transport. |
| Intent to engage in sexual activity as a predicate | No clear intent that travel would involve sexual activity. | Record shows intent to have sex with J.B. upon arrival; sexual activity theory supported. | Sufficient to support conviction under sex-predicated theory; pornography theory improper. |
| Culpability under North Dakota extraterritorial jurisdiction for out-of-state conduct | ND jurisdiction applies because soliciting a minor located in ND; act would be illegal if completed. | ND jurisdiction should not extend to this scenario; otherwise inconsistent with interstate conduct. | ND jurisdiction properly applies under § 29-03-01.1(3); prosecution permissible for out-of-state solicitation. |
| Jury instructions including multiple theories (pornography) | All theories properly submitted; errors harmless if any theory supports conviction. | Pornography theory should not have been charged; only sexual-conduct-with-minor theory applicable. | No plain error; the verdict is sustained on an alternative theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Spurlock, 495 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2007) (elements of attempt require intent and substantial step)
- United States v. Blue Bird, 372 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2004) (substantial-step standard; beyond mere preparation)
- Jones v. United States, 909 F.2d 533 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (transport requires actual transportation or substantial direction)
- Hoffman v. United States, 626 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2010) (pornography-incidental evidence not sufficient for theory)
- Papakee v. United States, 573 F.3d 569 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholds conviction under alternative viable theory)