## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1176 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. S EA N O S BORNE , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our tfo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:07C R00093- 001

—David F. H amil ton, Chief Ju dge

.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 24, 2008

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 5, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd P OSNERa nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . Se an Osbor ne pl eaded gui l ty to p os se ss i n g a n d d ist rib u tin g c h ild p or n og ra p h y, in vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. §2 25 2( a)
. The m i ni m um penal ty f or th atc r i m e i s 5 y ea r s, a nd the maxi m um i s 2 0 years , b ut i ft he d e f e n d a n th a s a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n “ u n d e r th e l a ws ofany St ate r el ating t o agg ra vate d sexual abuse , se xual abuse, o r abu siv e sexu alco nd uct i nvol vi ng a m i noro r war d”, the min i m um pe na l tyr i se s to 1 5 y ea r s an d the2 N o. 08

- 1176

m ax im um to 40. 18 U
. S. C
. § 2252 (b)( 1). Os born e’s record includ es a con viction for viol ating Ind

. C od e §35-42-4-9(b), w hi ch m ake s ita cri m e f ora perso n age 18 o r ol der t o “perf or m [ ] o r subm i t[ ] to any f ond lin g orto uching, o f ei th e r the c hi l d [ a ny pe r s o n a g e 1 4 o r 1 5 ] o r the o l der perso n, with intent to ar ouse orto sa ti sfy the se xual desi re s o fei therthe chi l d orthe ol der per son”. The di str i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that eve ryconvi cti on un der § 35- 42- 4- 9( b) ar i ses from “ abu si ve sexualco nd uct i nvol vi ng a m i noro r w ar d” and s en tence d Osborne to 15 yea rs ’ i m pri sonm ent. Se cti on 3 5- 42- 4-9(b) doubtl ess defi nes a cr i m e that en ta i l s “s ex ua l c o nduc t i nv o l vinga min o r o r war d”. But i s t h i s s exual co nd uct “abusi ve?” S ecti on 2 252(b) ( 1) does no tde fi ne tha two r d, n o r h a s a nyc o ur to fa pp ea l s a ddress ed w hat m ake s s ex ual co nd uct i nvol vi ng a m i nor “abusi ve. ” The pro secuto r conte nd s that § 2252 ( b)( 1) m ust be r ead “br oadl y” and that a ny o ff ense ar i sing fro m se x u al c on d u c t w ith m in or s m u st be se en as “a b u siv e.” That approa ch, however, would r ead t he word “abusi ve” out of§2 252(b) ( 1) ; i t would be as i fthe sta tute c ov ered any c onvi cti on f or“s exual co nd uct i nv olving a m i noro r w ar d”

. Th e ph r a s e “ a b us i v e s e xu a l c o nd uc t i nv o l v i ng a m i noro r w ar d” m us t b e a s ubset ofal l “s exual co nd uct i nv o l v i n g a mi n o r o r wa r d ”
. Y e t wh e n we a s k e d t he p r o s e c u t o r a t o r a l a r g u me n tf o r a n e x a mp l e o fa c r i me that ar i ses fro m “s exual co nd uct i n vo lving a m i noro r w ar d” that i s no t a l so “abusi ve, ” s he co uld notgi ve one. For ce and fra ud ar e tw o re aso ns w hy sexual c ontac t m i ght b e l abel ed “abusi ve, ” but these ar e not re quir ed f orN o. 08

- 1176 3 convi cti on un der §35- 42- 4- 9( b)

. (The u se orthreat ened use ofdeadl y for ce, o r adm i ni str ati on o fa drug, i n c re ases the m axi m um penalt y, see §3 5- 42- 4- 9( b) ( 2) , but i s no t r equi r ed f o r c o nv i ct i o n. ) S ex ua l co nt ac t wi thv er y y o ung g i r l s m i g htb e th o ug ht a bus i ve s i m pl y b ec au se o fthe vi cti m ’ s y outh, o r because pre gn ancy orthe tr aum a o f i nter cour se cre ate s a n el evat ed ri sk ofi nj ury. S ee U nited St at e s v. Sh ann on , 1 10 F
. 3d 38 2 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7) ( enb an c)
. But §35- 42- 4- 9( b) appli es onl y when the vi cti m i s at le ast 14; I nd i ana has a separ ate st atute co ver i ng se xual conta ct w i th a pers on 1 3 o r yo unger. S ubsect i on 9 ( b) al so do es no t co ve r s ex ua l i nt ercou r se wi tha c hi l d; tha t’ s th e p rovince of §35-42-4-9(a). W hat g i ves som e s up portto cl ass i fyi ng §3 5- 42- 4- 9( b) as a cr i m e o fse xual “abus e” is the re quir ed age di ff er ence. M any c rim in al laws, o fwh i ch st atuto ryr ape i s the be stknown exam ple , r eston a bel i efthata com bi nati on o f y o uth a nd a g e di ff er en ce pr ev en ts a n e ff ec ti ve c o ns en t to s ex ua l con d uc t. Sex ua l con d uc t w ithou t volun tary conse nt i s abusi ve. B u t is all sexual conduct between peopl e of diff er ent a ges i n the “abusi ve” subcate go ry ? Th e age di ff er ence und er §35-4 2-4

- 9( b) co uld be as sm al l as two ye ar s ( the o l der p er so n co u ld h av e jus t t u r n e d 18 , an d th e y ou n ge r c ou ld b e o n e d ay sh or t o f 16 ), an d th e s ex u al c on ta c t c ou ld i ncl ud e be havi orco m m on a m ong students in hi gh sc h oo l, su c h as kiss in g or p et tin g “w ith in te n t to a ro u se . . . th e s ex u al d es ire s” of eit h er p er so n . In d ian a h as h eld t h at a to u c h on th e b u tt oc ks or in n er th igh co m es w ith in “any f ondling o r touchi ng” und erthis st atute
. S ee Al t e s v.4 N o. 08

- 1176 State, 822 N
. E
. 2d 1 116, 11 21–2 2 (Ind

. A p p . 2005) (butt ocks); K re bs v . State, 816 N
. E
. 2d 469, 474 ( I nd

. A p p . 2004) (breast); N uerge v. State, 67 7 N
. E.2 d 1043, 10 48 ( I nd

. A pp . 19 97) ( thi gh)

. Exp l or ato ryto uching between stu dents i n hi gh sch o o l i s no t a f o r m o f “ a b us i v e ” s e xu a l c o nt a c t, a s t hat wo r d i s o r di na r i l y u nd e r s t o o d. I nd iana h as recogn ized th is. A m en d m en ts to §35-42-4-9 i n 200 7 cr eat e a defense that cove rs m osthi gh sc hool students’ to uching of the opposi te sex. S ubsect i on ( e) now provi des: It is a d efe n se t o a p ro se c u tio n u n d er th is s ec tio n if al l the f ol l owing apply: (1) T he pers on is not m o r e t ha n four (4) years o l d e r th a n th e v i c t i m. ( 2) The r el at i o ns hip b etwee n the pe r so n a nd the v ict im was a dating r el ati onshi p oran o ng o i ngpe r so na l r el at i o ns hi p. The term “ong oi ng per sonalr el ati onshi p ” d oes not i nc l ud e a f a mi l y r e l a t i o ns hi p. ( 3) The cr i m e: ( A ) was not com m i tt ed b y a perso n w ho i s at l eas t t w enty- one ( 21) ye ar s o f age ; ( B) was not com m i tte d b y usi ng o r thre ateni ng the use ofdeadl y for ce; ( C) w as not co m m i tt ed whi l e ar me d wi th a de adl y wea po n; ( D) di d n o tr e s u l ti n s e r i o u s b o d i l y i nj u r y ; ( E) wa s n o tf a c i l i t a t e d b y fu r n i s h i n gth e v i c t i m, wi th o utthe v i ct i m ’s knowl edg e, wi tha dr ug ( as defi ned i n I C 16- 42- 19- 2( 1) ) o r a co ntro l l ed s u b s t a n c e ( a s d e fi n e d i n I C 3 5

- 4 8

- 1

- 9 ) o r kn o w-N o. 08

- 1176 5 i ngtha t th e vi ct i m w as fur ni sh ed wi ththe dr ug or con troll ed su bsta nc e w ithou t th e victim ’s knowle dge; and (F ) was not com m i tte d by a p er son havi ng a posi ti on o fautho ri ty orsubs t a n t i a l i n fl u e n c e o v e r th e v i c t i m. ( 4) T he p e r s o n ha s n o tc o mm i t t e d a no the r se x o ff en se ( as defi ne d i n I C 1 1- 8- 8- 5. 2) ( i nc l udi ng a d elin q u en t a c t t h at w ou ld be a se x offe n se if com m i tte d by a n adult ) ag ai nst a ny o ther per so n. Subse cti on ( e) i denti fi es ci rcum sta nces und erwh i ch se xual fon d l i n g or to u c h in g c ou ld n ot be ca lled “a b u siv e” in ord inary us age. Y et O sborn e w as con victed i n 20 02, before thi s defense w as add ed to the sta tute. Altho ug h ne i th er §2 25 2 no r an y o th er se ct i on of the Cri m i nal Code defi nes the word “abusi ve, ” s om e o ther se ct i o ns sh ed l i g ht o n ho w Co ng r es s unde r stood th e w or d. Se cti on 2 241 cove rs “ agg ra vate d sexual abuse ”; §224 2 d eal s w i th “sexual abuse”; §2243 add re sse s “ sexual a b u s e o f a mi n o r o r wa r d ”
. T h e s e a r e th e s a me th r e e t e r ms that §225 2( b) ( 1) em plo ys to denote sta te convi cti ons that supp or t a r eci divi st enhancem ent, and §22 52(b) ( 1) was ad d e d in 19 90 at th e sam e tim e tha t §§ 2241 –43 w ere enacte d, so these l aw s s houl d be r ead to gether. S ecti on 22 43 i s m o sthe l pfulf o r o urpurp o se , a s i t co ve r s th e s e x u a l ab u s e o fa m i n o r . S e c t i o n2 2 4 3 ( a ) m a k e s i ta c r i me to “ en g ag e[ ] i n a s ex ua l a ct ” wi tha pe r so n b etwee n the age s o f12 and 15 w ho i s a t l eas t 4 ye ars yo unger than the defendant. S ecti on 2 246( 2) i n turn defines “ sexualact ” to i nc l ude i nt er co ur se , fel l at i o , c unni l i ng us , a nd t o uch i ng6 N o. 08

- 1176 the g eni tal i a “ not thro ugh the cl othi ng”. “S exual co ntact” i s defi ned i n §22 46( 3) to i ncl ud e t ouchi ng, di rec tly o r thro ugh cl othi ng, “the ge ni tal i a, anus, gr oi n, breas t, i nner thi gh, o r butto cks ofany perso n w i th an i ntent to abuse, humi l i at e, ha r as s, d egrade, o r a r o us e o r g r at i fy the se x u al d es ire of an y p er so n .” Give n the l ack of a defini ti on i n §22 52, we thi nk i t be st to sa y t h at, as a m at te r of fe d er al la w , s ex u al b eh av ior is “a b u siv e” on ly if it is sim ilar to on e o f th e c rim es d en om in a t e d a s a form of “a b u se ” e lse w h er e in T itle 18 . Th is is th e a p p ro ac h th e S u p re m e C ou rtto ok inB ega y v . U nited Sta tes , 128 S. Ct
. 1581 (2008), to the d e finition of a “violent fel ony ” un d er 18 U
. S. C
. §92 4 (e )(2)(B)(i i)
. Cf. E strad a -E spin o z a v. M uk a sey, 54 6 F
. 3d 1147( 9th C i r. 20 08) ( en banc) ( “se xual abu se of a m i nor ” i n i m m i gr ati on l aw m ean s a state offense th at w ou ld be a crim e u nd er §2243 ). Si m i l ari s no t nec ess ar i l y i denti cal ; federa l l aw does not prohibi t a l l kind s o fabusi ve sexualco n ta c t, and statutes such as §224 3 co ntai n el em en ts ( i nter sta te com m er ce o r th e sp ecial fed eral terri torialj urisd iction) th a t are u n r elated to the “ab us ive” nat ure of th e sex ua l beh avior. That’ s why §225 2 e nhances the pen al ty f ol l owing sta te as wel l a s f ede r alc o nv i ct i o ns. Iti s ea syt o s ee why an y sexualco ntact by a chi l d’s ad u lt rel ati ves m i ght b e d ee m e d abu sive even thou gh no fed eral statu te cove rs the s ubj ect. But a s tat e s tat u te that m ake s i t a cr i m e f or one teen ager to eng age in sex ua l con tact w ith an oth er, w ith ou t co m m i tti ng a sexualacto r w i thout a four- yea r diff eren c e in ag e, i s har d to cl ass i fy a s “ abusi ve” gi ven th e tr ea tmenttha t te r m r ec ei ves in C hapte r 1 09 A ofthe Cri m i nal Code ( 18 U
. S. C. §§ 2241 –48, and ti tl ed “S exual A bu se”).N o. 08

- 1176 7 The cri m e defi ned by Ind

. Code §35

- 42- 4- 9( a) co ver s a “se xual act ” and therefor e would be cl ass i fi ed as “abusi ve” unde r 2 24 3( a) w he n th e ag e di ff er en ce i s atl ea stf o ur yea rs . But the cri m e d efi ned by §35- 42- 4- 9( b) i s a m bi guous. I t co ver s s om e abusi ve “se xual acts ”

— f orexam ple , a 20- year-old m an i nd uc es a 1 4 -yea r-ol d gi rl to p erform fella tio

— and otherse xual conduct that i s no t abusi ve

— f or exam ple , a gi rli n herse ni orye ar of hi gh sc hoolper m i ts her boy f ri en d , in hi s s ophom or e y ear, to to uch her bre a s t s . Whe n a s t a t e l a w c o v e r s c o nd uc ts o me o fwh i ch i s withi n, and the re st o fwh i ch i s o utsi de, the sco pe of a r ec i di vi sts ta tute, the f ede r alc o ur t m aye xa m i ne the charg i ng papers (and any gui l ty- ple a co l l oquy) to cl ass i fy the convi cti on. S ee Ta ylo r v. U nited Sta tes , 49 5 U
. S. 575 (1990); Sh epa rd v . U nited Sta tes , 5 44 U
. S. 13 (2005). The di st r i ctc o ur t m us t fi nd o ut, usi ng the c ha r g i ng pape r s and a ny o th erdo cument s th atmay be c o nsi dered under Tayl ora nd Sh epa rd, wh etherOsborn e was convi cte d o fco nd uct co m parabl e t o that cove re d by 18 U .S.C . §22 43 . Th e p a r t i e s t ell u s t h at O sb or n e, w h ile age 21 , h ad s ex ual i nter cour se w i th a gi rlo f14
. H ow he cam e t o be c onvi cted under § 35- 42- 4- 9( b) ratherthan §35-42-4 -9 (a ) is a m ystery

— and, to re peat, the questi on i s no t whathe did b ut wha t he was conv i ct e d of

. U nl ess th e c ha r g i ngp a pe r s de mon s t r a t e tha tOsb o r ne h a s bee n c o n v i c t e d o fv i o l a t i n g§ 3 5

- 4 2

- 4

- 9 ( b ) i n a wa y th a ts h o ws “abusi ve” sexualbehav i or, as we ha ve defined i t, then the c ourtm ust t re at the 2 002 convi cti on a s no n-abusi ve, because t h e e l em ents of§3 5- 42- 4- 9( b) per m i t a co nvi cti on f or m any k i nd s o fc o nd uc ttha tfe de r a l l a w do e s n ot c all “ ab u siv e.”8 N o. 08

- 1176 T h e d ist ric t c ou rtm u st r ec on sid er O sb or n e’s s en te n c e in l i g ht o f o ur di sc us si o n. Osb o r ne ’ s ar g um en t about the appli cati on o fU .S
. S. G. §2G2. 2( b) ( 5) ( w hi ch adds fi ve offen se levels w he n a d efend an t h as en gaged i n “a pa ttern ofact i vi ty i nvol vi ng the se xual abuse orexploit atio n of a m i nor ”) need notbe re ached i fpro ceedi ngs o n re m and show thathi s v i ola ti on o f§3 5- 42- 4- 9( b) enta i l ed abusi ve sexualco ntact, for the 1 5- yea r m i ni m um under §2 25 2(b) ex ce eds th e se nt en ce co m put ed unde r th e S en te n c ing Gu i del i nes. Bu t i f the dist ri ct cour t rul es in Osbor ne’ s f avo r on the c h ar acte ri zati on o fhi s co nvi cti on unde r § 35

- 42

- 4- 9(b) , the c o ur t sh o ul d rec o ns i derthe §2G2. 2( b) ( 5) questi on i n l i ght o fits co ncl usi on, and w hat we ha ve s ai d i n thi s o pi ni o n. V ACA T ED AN D R EMAND ED

1- 5- 09