Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-13-10459/USCOURTS-ca11-13-10459-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis E. Morales
Appellant
Rebeca Rivera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-10459

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cr-00121-RBD-KRS-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REBECA RIVERA, LUIS E. MORALES,

a.k.a. Tito Morales,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(January 7, 2014)

Before MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and HUCK,* District Judge.

____________

*Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, 

sitting by designation.

USCA11 Case: 13-10459 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 1 of 7
2

PER CURIAM:

In this direct criminal appeal, Defendant-Appellant Morales appeals his 

convictions on three counts of sex trafficking of a minor, T.M., and also appeals 

his convictions on three counts of sex trafficking of another minor, M.R. His sole 

argument on appeal is that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to give 

his requested limiting instruction with respect to the testimony of four witnesses, 

which testimony was admissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 414. 

Defendant-Appellant Rivera appeals her convictions for aiding and abetting

Morales’s offenses with respect to the three counts relating to minor T.M. 

Appellant Rivera’s sole argument on appeal is an insufficiency of the evidence 

argument. We first address Morales’s challenge, and then Rivera’s.

MORALES’S APPEAL

The crucial evidence in the government’s case in chief was the testimony of 

T.M. and M.R. relating the sexual abuse that they suffered at the hands of Morales. 

Both were still minors at the time of their testimony at trial. The government also 

introduced the testimony of four other witnesses who provided evidence of the 

defendant’s commission of other child molestation offenses against them. Two of 

these involved T.M.’s sisters and occurred shortly after Morales’s sexual abuse of 

T.M. The other two occurred some years earlier. As Morales concedes on appeal, 

the testimony of these other four witnesses was admissible under Federal Rule of 

USCA11 Case: 13-10459 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 2 of 7
3

Evidence 414. Morales also concedes that such Rule 414 evidence may be 

considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant, including 

propensity. 

Morales’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court abused its 

discretion in refusing to give his requested instruction. Morales requested that the 

jury be explicitly instructed that “you should not find the defendant guilty of the 

charges in the Indictment based solely upon this evidence [i.e., the Rule 414 

evidence] if the government has not proven the charges in the Indictment beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” The district court rejected the requested instruction, concluding 

that the requested instruction was substantially covered by instructions already 

given to the jury. For the following reasons, we agree with the district court.

The district court instructed the jury: “It will be your duty to decide whether 

the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the specific facts necessary 

to find the defendants guilty of the crimes charged in the Superseding Indictment.” 

The district court further instructed the jury: “Each defendant is on trial only for 

the specific offenses alleged in the Indictment. . . . During the course of the trial 

you heard evidence of acts allegedly done by Defendant Luis E. Morales involving 

sexual activity with minor children who were not named in the Indictment.” The 

district court then immediately instructed seriatim with respect to each of the six 

counts that the defendant could be found guilty “only if all of the following facts 

USCA11 Case: 13-10459 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 3 of 7
4

are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Included in the facts which the 

instructions required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt were the fact that the 

sex trafficking in the first three counts involved the minor T.M. and the fact that 

the sex trafficking in the last three counts involved the minor M.R. 

In other words, the instructions made it clear that Morales was on trial only 

for the specific offenses alleged in the indictment, and then the necessary facts for 

conviction were immediately listed making clear that the convictions had to be for 

the sex trafficking of T.M. and M.R. 

Not only do we think that it was clear from the instructions themselves that 

Morales could not be convicted based solely on the testimony of the Rule 414 

witnesses, but we also note that this clear meaning of the instructions was 

explicitly translated for the benefit of the jury by Morales’s attorney in his closing 

argument. The attorney reminded the jury that Morales was not charged with any 

crime based on the Rule 414 evidence, and he expressly told the jury that they 

could not convict Morales based upon that testimony. 

We are confident that the jury was properly guided in its deliberations, and 

that there was no impairment to Morales’s ability to present his defense. 

RIVERA’S APPEAL

Rivera’s insufficiency argument is unusual. She concedes that there is 

sufficient evidence to support Morales’s convictions on Counts One through Three

USCA11 Case: 13-10459 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 4 of 7
5

involving the minor T.M. These are the three counts with respect to which she is 

charged with having aided and abetted Morales. Rivera also does not challenge the 

district court’s finding, with which we agree, that there was ample evidence of the 

interstate commerce element in all three counts. Her only argument is that there is 

insufficient evidence of her personal involvement1

with respect to the interstate 

commerce element of the three counts.

We conclude that Rivera’s argument fails on both the law and the facts. Our 

cases have established that:

The aiding and abetting statute allows the jury to find a person guilty 

of a substantive crime even though that person did not commit all acts 

constituting elements of the crime.

. . . . 

[T]he jury could have found Blanton guilty of a substantive crime, in 

this case a Travel Act violation, under an aiding and abetting theory 

even though Blanton did not commit all acts constituting elements of 

the crime (such as interstate travel). 

United States v. Broadwell, 870 F.2d 594, 608 (11th Cir. 1989). Rather, in an 

aiding and abetting case, our cases require only that the government prove that the 

defendant “associated himself in some way with the criminal venture, that he 

wished to bring it about, and that he sought by his actions to make it succeed.” Id.

at 609. We conclude that there was ample evidence from which a reasonable jury 

 1 She also argues that there was no evidence that she had any knowledge with 

respect to the interstate transportation of T.M. As noted below, we conclude that a reasonable 

jury could find that she did have knowledge that T.M. would be transported from Florida to 

Connecticut and back. 

USCA11 Case: 13-10459 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 5 of 7
6

could find that through her affirmative actions, Rivera associated herself with 

Morales’s criminal venture with T.M. and sought to make it succeed. Indeed, she 

not only “mentored” T.M. in telephone conversations before the trip to 

Connecticut, but while they were all three together in Connecticut, the jury could 

find that she also demonstrated for T.M. the kind of sexual favors for Morales that 

were expected of a “prophet,” e.g., the incident in the fitting room at the shopping 

mall, and the incident on the couch when Rivera not only demonstrated her own 

sexual favors for Morales but affirmatively moved T.M.’s own hands forcing T.M.

to engage in sexual activity with Morales.

We also conclude that a reasonable jury could find that Rivera knew that 

Morales was transporting T.M. across state lines (both from Florida to Connecticut 

and back) with intent to engage in sexual activity, and that Rivera aided and 

abetted same. We agree with the conclusions of the district court. See United 

States v. Rivera, No. 6:12–cr–121–Orl–37KRS, 2012 WL 6589526, at *4, *5

(M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2012). A reasonable jury could find that Rivera knew T.M.

lived in Florida because she had earlier met T.M. at Morales’s church and because 

she spoke with T.M. by phone many times before the trip to Connecticut. The jury 

also could find that Rivera knew they were coming to Connecticut because a 

primary purpose of the trip was to make a music album with Rivera, because they 

went directly to Rivera’s house in Connecticut, because Rivera provided 

USCA11 Case: 13-10459 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 6 of 7
7

accommodations for one of the traveling group, T.M.’s uncle, while the group was 

in Connecticut, and because Rivera spent so much time with Morales and T.M.

while they were in Connecticut. With regard to the return trip, there was evidence 

that T.M. was a minor who went to Connecticut for a set and limited period of 

time, with a limited purpose, and she travelled with her uncle, who was also from 

Florida. Thus it was reasonable to conclude that T.M. would be returning to 

Florida. The jury could also find that Rivera was aware of and encouraged 

Morales’s sexual activity with minor girls, and that she knew about and 

encouraged Morales’s expectations of sexual favors from his female “prophets.”

In sum, although Rivera was not actually involved in the interstate travel 

itself, a reasonable jury could find that she knew the travel would take place, as 

well as the purpose thereof, and that she knowingly associated herself with 

Morales’s criminal venture, wished to bring it about, and sought by her actions to 

make it succeed. Broadwell, 870 F.2d at 609.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the convictions of both Morales and 

Rivera.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 13-10459 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 7 of 7