United States v. Rodríguez-Rodríguez
663 F.3d 53
1st Cir.2011Background
- Rodríguez-Rodríguez was tried in Puerto Rico on one count of using an interstate facility to persuade a minor to engage in sexual activity (§2422(b)).
- The government presented undercover agent Segarra as Patsy, a supposed fourteen-year-old girl, and recordings of chats, IMs, and phone calls showing Rodriguez’s intent to have sex with Patsy.
- Indictment alleged Rodriguez attempted to entice a fourteen-year-old to engage in sexual activity with him, for which he could be charged in Puerto Rico.
- Rodríguez challenged that the charge actually alleged enticing Patsy to have sex with another minor, and argued the indictment was constructively amended by jury instructions.
- District court and jury rejected these objections; Rodriguez was convicted after approximately three hours of deliberation.
- Post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial were denied; Rodríguez timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indictment charged enticing Patsy to have sex with him | Rodríguez argued indictment targeted another minor, not Patsy. | Rodríguez contends indictment is broader and improperly allows conviction for enticing third parties. | Indictment properly charges enticing Patsy to have sex with him. |
| Whether jury instructions amended the indictment constructively | Rodríguez contends instructions broadened bases beyond sexual intercourse. | Rodríguez argues instructions track Puerto Rico law and included broader sex-activity definitions. | No constructive amendment or prejudicial variance; instructions permissible. |
| Whether the case involved a prejudicial variance | Rodríguez claims trial evidence differed from what indictment alleged. | Rodríguez contends variance due to broader statute-based activity. | No prejudicial variance; evidence aligned with the charged offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coffin v. Bowater, Inc., 501 F.3d 80 (1st Cir.2007) (Last antecedent rule governs interpretation of qualifying phrases)
- Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (U.S. 2003) (statutory-interpretation presumption and reference rules)
- Brandao, 539 F.3d 44 (1st Cir.2008) (constructive amendment and indictment integrity principles)
- Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (U.S. 1960) (indictment must not be broadened after grand jury ruling)
- Bucci, 525 F.3d 116 (1st Cir.2008) (constructive amendment standard in the First Circuit)
- Fornia-Castillo, 408 F.3d 52 (1st Cir.2005) (variance and constructive amendment considerations)
- Mueffelman, 470 F.3d 33 (1st Cir.2006) (variance/amendment distinctions are a continuum)
- Haines v. Risley, 412 F.3d 285 (1st Cir.2005) (doctrines of variance and constructive amendment examined)