United States v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 04 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | August Term 2018,Docket No. 17-3056-cr |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Nicholas MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Sarah P. Karwan, Assistant United States Attorney (Marc H. Silverman, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, Connecticut, for Appellee.
Matthew Brissenden, Matthew W. Brissenden, P.C., Garden City, New York, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Kearse, Wesley, and Chin, Circuit Judges.
In this case, the government charged defendant-appellant Nicholas Murphy with traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in "illicit sexual conduct" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). The government alleged that the intended "illicit sexual conduct" was the sexual abuse of an individual at least 12 years old but not yet 16 years old, who was at least four years younger than the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a). Thus, Murphy was charged with (a) traveling in interstate commerce (b) for the purpose of (1) knowingly engaging in a sexual act with (2) a minor not younger than 12, not yet 16, and at least four years his junior.
Murphy pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that stipulated that when he was 25 years old, he traveled from Rhode Island to Connecticut for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with a young girl he told detectives he believed to be 16 years old when in fact she was younger than 16 but older than 13. The government, defense counsel, Murphy, and, ultimately, the district court proceeded on the assumption that § 2423(b), when charged with § 2243(a) as the intended illicit sexual conduct, could be violated without knowledge of the victim’s age.
We hold that 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) is not a strict liability crime. As charged here, the statute criminalizes interstate travel "for the purpose of" -- that is, with the intent of -- engaging in a sexual act with someone aged at least 12, not yet 16, and at least four years the defendant’s junior. Murphy, however, apparently believed he was going to have sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old. Hence, while he might very well have been guilty of a different crime, on this record, he was not guilty of violating § 2423(b). Accordingly, we vacate Murphy’s conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The indictment charges that Murphy traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with another person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). Section 2423 provides, in part:
18 U.S.C. § 2423.1 Section 2423(b) thus criminalizes travel for certain illegal purposes, namely, for the purpose of committing a crime listed in Chapter 109A. According to the indictment, the "illicit sexual conduct" that Murphy intended to engage in was the "sexual abuse of a minor" as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a).
Section 2243, entitled "[s]exual abuse of a minor or ward" and included in Chapter 109A, provides:
18 U.S.C. § 2243 (emphasis added). Section 2243(a) thus criminalizes the substantive act of sexual abuse of a minor who is at least 12 years old, has not yet attained the age of 16 years old, and is at least four years younger than the defendant. As noted in subsection (d), this crime contains no requirement of proof of knowledge of the victim’s age. As noted in subsection (c), however, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant reasonably believed the victim to be at least 16 years old.
In 2015, Murphy was a 25-year-old U.S. Air Force member. Murphy met the victim through the online dating website "Plenty of Fish." Murphy told the victim he was 19 years old when in fact he was 25 years old. The victim’s profile stated that she was 19 years old. After their initial introduction on the dating website, Murphy and the victim continued to correspond on the Facebook Messenger application. The victim eventually told Murphy that she was 16 years old. In fact, however, the victim was 14 years old -- at least 12 years old and not yet 16 years old.
On the evening of September 16, 2015, Murphy drove from Rhode Island to Connecticut where the victim resided with her parents. Murphy’s purpose in traveling to Connecticut was to engage in sexual conduct with the victim. Once he arrived in Connecticut, Murphy and the victim engaged in sexual intercourse.
On September 24, 2015, shortly after his rendezvous with the victim in Connecticut, Murphy was interviewed by local Connecticut law enforcement. Murphy admitted to having sexual intercourse with the victim, and he stated that he believed the victim to be sixteen years old.
On December 14, 2016, a grand jury in the District of Connecticut charged Murphy with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). The indictment charges that:
App’x at 18. Hence, Murphy was charged with one crime: travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a minor in violation of § 2423(b). The meaning of a critical component of the crime, "illicit sexual conduct," is defined with reference to a separate statute, § 2243(a).
On June 5, 2017, Murphy appeared before a magistrate judge (Richardson, J. ) and signed a plea agreement. The plea agreement provided that the crime to which he was pleading guilty had two "essential elements" that "must be satisfied":
App’x at 85. The plea agreement did not define the term "illicit sexual conduct" either by reference to statute or otherwise. At the plea hearing, the magistrate judge explained to Murphy that if he were to go to trial, the government would have to prove certain elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The court referenced page one of the plea agreement and asked the government to read the elements aloud. Neither the government nor the magistrate judge explained the term "illicit sexual conduct."
The plea agreement stipulated that (a) "[the victim] told [Murphy] that she was sixteen when, in fact, she was less than sixteen but older than thirteen years old" and (b) Murphy "told the detectives that he believed her to be sixteen." App’x at 93. When asked to describe his conduct, Murphy explained to the magistrate judge:
I traveled from Rhode Island to Connecticut to meet with this girl to engage in sexual activities. I should have known as the adult that it was a poor decision on my part and I should have known better. She was underage, and ... I should have never taken that drive to begin with, but I did. ... I should have known better once I arrived [at] the house that it was a poor situation and shouldn’t have engaged in the activity.
App’x at 54. Hence, Murphy did not provide any additional indication of his knowledge of the victim’s age, other than that "[s]he was underage" and he "should have known better."
Later in the plea hearing, the government stated on the record that were the case to go to trial, it would prove that "the victim told [Murphy] that she was 16 even though her Plenty of Fish profile stated 19, but she was in fact younger than 16, being older than 13 and under 16." App’x at 58. The government confirmed that Murphy "told the detectives that he knew [the victim] to be 16." Id. at 60.
The court proceeded to ask Murphy whether he "believe[d he was] ... in fact guilty of the charge to which [he was] offering...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Manzano (In re United States)
...what Manzano did was what Congress had in mind when it provided for fifteen-year mandatory sentences. Cf. United States v. Murphy , 942 F.3d 73, 80 (2d Cir. 2019) (recognizing the relevance of "how the statute was intended to operate" in assessing the propriety of up to thirty years' impris......
-
United States v. Montague
... ... obvious.") (internal quotation ... marks, alteration, and citation omitted). [ 5 ] ... In this ... case, "the government's proffered interpretation of ... the statute is inconsistent with its plain words." ... United States v. Murphy , 942 F.3d 73, 86 (2d Cir ... 2019). The statute requires that "the violation referred ... to in subsection (c)(1)" must "involve at ... least" 150 kilograms of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. § ... 848(b)(2)(A). That provision does not bear the interpretation ... that the ... ...
-
United States v. Capers
...However, there is certainly no rule that an "absence of circuit precedent" precludes a finding of plain error. See United States v. Murphy , 942 F.3d 73, 86 (2d Cir. 2019) (finding plain error despite this Court not having made an "explicit" determination on the issue). Instead, we must det......
-
United States v. Capers
...However, there is certainly no rule that an "absence of circuit precedent" precludes a finding of plain error. See United States v. Murphy, 942 F.3d 73, 86 (2d Cir. 2019) (finding plain error despite this Court not having made an "explicit" determination on the issue). Instead, we must dete......