Page 54 - TPA Journal March April 2022

Peterson’s first argument on appeal is that the a reasonable jury to come to the conclusion that
evidence at trial was insufficient to support his there was some form of inducement.” Sending
conviction of attempted enticement of a minor sexually explicit messages is probative evidence of
under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). To support a intent to induce, persuade, entice, or coerce a minor
conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), the to engage in illegal sex.
Government must prove that Peterson (1) “used a
facility of interstate commerce to commit the This court has also rejected arguments similar to
offense,” (2) “was aware that [the victim] was Peterson’s argument that the Government must
younger than eighteen,” (3) “could have been show that the minor was unwilling until the
charged with a criminal offense” by “engaging in defendant’s actions persuaded the minor to engage
sexual activity with [the victim],” and (4) in sexual activity. Peterson engaged in conduct
“knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, or similar to the defendants’ conduct in Lundy and
coerced [the victim] to engage in criminal sexual White. He responded to a Craigslist advertisement
activity.” To prove attempted coercion or posted by a law enforcement agent, exchanged
enticement of a minor, “the Government must sexually explicit text messages for two weeks with
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the the law enforcement agent posing as a minor
defendant (1) acted with the culpability required to female named “Nikki,” continued these explicit
commit the underlying substantive offense, and (2) text conversations even after “Nikki” told Peterson
took a substantial step toward its commission.” she was a 13-year-old girl and sent him a photo of
a woman that had been age regressed to look like a
Peterson preserved the sufficiency issue . . . We 13-year-old girl, suggested he would purchase
therefore review de novo whether “any rational “Nikki” a cell phone if she met with him in person
trier of fact could have found the essential elements so she could send him sexual videos and photos,
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” We agreed to meet “Nikki” at a public park to have sex,
review the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, and arrived at the meet-up location with an empty
as well as any reasonable inferences drawn from condom box, erectile dysfunction medication, and
the evidence, in “a light most favorable to the a Victoria’s Secret bag containing two pink pajama
verdict.” sets in size Petite Small and a receipt showing he
had purchased the items that morning at a local
Peterson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence mall. Given this evidence, we conclude that a
only as to the fourth element of § 2422(b). Citing rational trier of fact could have found that Peterson
case law from other circuits, Peterson argues that knowingly attempted to induce or entice a minor to
the element of persuasion, inducement, or engage in sexual activity.
enticement requires a showing that he made an
effort to “alter” or “affect” the minor’s mental state, Peterson’s second argument on appeal is that the
and that it is insufficient to show that he simply district court erred when it rejected his proposed
arranged, asked for, or made sexual activity “more jury instruction clarifying the definition of
appealing.” “Whether there was inducement, “enticement.” (discussion omitted.)
persuasion, or enticement is a question of fact for
the jury to decide. All this court must decide is Peterson’s third argument on appeal is that his
whether or not enough evidence was presented for sentence was procedurally unsound in two ways.

50 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal