United States v. Mozie: Panel Upholds Defendant's Conviction for Child Sex Trafficking While Finding That "Reckless Disregard" of Whether a Child is a Minor is Sufficient for Conviction

United States v. Mozie, No. 12-12538, from SDFla

Chief Circuit Judge Carnes joined by Circuit Judge Wilson and Senior Circuit Judge Fay.

Summary: The defendant hosted parties in his house six days a week selling food, alcohol, drugs, and sex to his party guests.  He used teenage girls as prostitutes by posing as a businessman who ran a modeling agency called “Pretty Pink Pussy Enterprises.”

He was indicted and convicted of child sex trafficking, conspiracy to commit child sex trafficking, and producing child pornography.  After a jury trial, he was convicted of all counts and sentenced to life imprisonment.  He appealed, raising three challenges to his convictions and two to his sentence. 

First, the defendant raised facial constitutional challenges to the child sex trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1591, and the corresponding conspiracy provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1594(c).  The challenged portion of the statute provided that where the defendant “had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim . . . the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the person had not attained the age of 18 years.”  18 U.S.C. § 1591(c).  The defendant claimed that this language violated the Due Process Clause because it allowed the government to obtain a conviction without proving that the defendant actually knew his victim was a minor—the government must only show a mens rea of reckless disregard. 

The panel rejected this constitutional challenge, because § 1591 did not lower the government’s burden of proof; instead, it adjusted the necessary mens rea.  If the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim, it need only prove that he recklessly disregarded the fact that she was under the age of 18, not that the defendant knew she was.  Furthermore, to the extent the defendant challenged the “reckless disregard” mens rea standard, the panel concluded that the Due Process Clause does not prevent Congress from criminalizing conduct that is done with reckless disregard instead of actual knowledge. 

Next, the defendant asserted that § 1591 was void for vagueness due to the “reckless disregard” and “reasonable opportunity to observe” language.  The panel disagreed, finding that the statutory language gave fair notice to the defendant that his conduct was criminal.  The panel also rejected the defendant’s Eighth Amendment challenge premised on the argument that a sentence of life imprisonment could not be authorized based on reckless conduct.

The panel then addressed the defendant’s claim that the district court constructively amended the indictment.  The indictment alleged conjunctively that the defendant both knew and recklessly disregarded the fact that the victims were younger than eighteen years old.  The district court, however, phrased its jury instructions about the requisite knowledge in the disjunctive.  The panel rejected the defendant's argument because where an indictment charges in the conjunctive several means of violating a statute, a conviction may be obtained on proof of only one of the means, and this rule applies to alternative mental states that may satisfy an element.

Finally, the panel rejected a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, rejected a challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the defendant’s life sentence (based on the 156 month sentence given to a co-defendant and the purported lack of evidence that the defendant had caused physical or emotional harm to his victims), and a proportionality challenge to his sentence under the Eighth Amendment.

The panel affirmed the defendant’s conviction and sentence.