Opinion ID: 77967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mistake of age jury instruction

Text: Deverso claims that the district court erred by refusing to give his mistake of age instruction as to Count Three. Deverso contends that knowledge of age is constitutionally mandated and because the Government charged that he did knowingly employ, use, persuade, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct outside of the United States for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct, he could raise mistake of age as a defense. The Government responds that the district court properly refused to give a mistake of age instruction. We agree. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2251(c)(1), [a]ny person who, in a circumstance described in paragraph (2), employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct outside of the United States, its territories or possessions, for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e). Id. Subsection (2) states that the circumstance referred to in paragraph (1) is that  (A) the person intends such visual depiction to be transported to the United States, its territories or possessions, by any means, including by computer or mail; or (B) the person transports such visual depiction to the United States, its territories or possessions, by any means, including by computer or mail. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(c)(2). The statute sets the age of majority at 18. 18 U.S.C. § 2256(1). Deverso first contends that he was entitled to a mistake of age defense jury instruction because knowledge of age is an element of the offense under § 2251. We disagree and hold that knowledge of age is not an element of this offense. See United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 76 & n. 5, 115 S.Ct. 464, 130 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994) (concluding, although in dicta, that a mistake of age defense to 18 U.S.C. § 2251 is not constitutionally mandated and citing a Senate Conference Committee Report explaining that the deletion of the word knowingly from § 2251 reflected an intent to eliminate knowledge of age as an element of the crime); United States v. Griffith, 284 F.3d 338, 349 (2d Cir.2002) (rejecting defendants' argument that the district court's charge to the jury omitting scienter of age under § 2251 was erroneous); United States v. Johnson, 376 F.3d 689, 693 (7th Cir.2004) (finding that because defendant was charged with the attempt to manufacture child pornography, the Government had to prove knowledge of the minor's age; however, commenting that if the defendant were charged with the commission of the completed offense under § 2251, the Government would not have to prove knowledge of the minor's age); United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 858 F.2d 534, 538-41 (9th Cir.1988) (acknowledging that scienter as to age is not an element of 18 U.S.C. § 2251); H.R.REP. No. 99-910, at 6 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5952, 5956 (noting that under § 2251 the Government need not prove that the defendant actually knew the person depicted was in fact under 18 years of age). Deverso also argues that he was entitled to a mistake of age jury instruction because it is constitutionally mandated. He relies on United States District Court, 858 F.2d at 537-43, in which the Ninth Circuit engrafted a mistake of age defense into the statute after concluding that such a defense was required under the First Amendment although the statute did not have a scienter of age element. We reject Deverso's contention and hold that the Constitution does not mandate a mistake of age defense under § 2251. See United States v. Crow, 164 F.3d 229, 236 (5th Cir.1999) (finding defendant's constitutional challenge to § 2251 meritless); cf. Gilmour v. Rogerson, 117 F.3d 368, 370-73 (8th Cir.1997) (considering Iowa statute similar to § 2251 and concluding that the First Amendment does not mandate a mistake of age defense to the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor). Accordingly, we reject Deverso's argument that the district court erred in its jury instruction on Count Three. [2]