Opinion ID: 2781756
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: challenge to the sufficiency of the

Text: EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO COUNT FOUR Implicitly acknowledging that the conduct displayed in the Government’s exhibit 4 depicts the crime charged in Count Four, Bailey argues that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction on Count Four. Bailey’s argument is based on the district court’s finding that exhibit 4 does not show S.C. actually masturbating. D.C. Docket 56 at 5. Bailey argues that a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1 In light of our opinion, we need not rely on the recent change to Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(B), which prohibits a challenge to a defect in the indictment after the trial has commenced. 5 Case: 14-10174 Date Filed: 02/24/2015 Page: 6 of 7 § 2251(a) requires that a minor actually masturbate in the visual depiction. The district court held that it was sufficient for the Government to prove that the defendant “knowingly induced and enticed her to masturbate.” Id. at 5. Section 2251 provides in relevant part: (a) Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in . . . any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct, or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e) . . . if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate . . . commerce by any means, including by computer. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). This Court reviews de novo whether there is sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict in a criminal trial. United States v. Doe, 661 F.3d 550, 560 (11th Cir. 2011). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and resolve all reasonable inferences and credibility evaluations in favor of the verdict. Id. “Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282, 1299 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Further, if a reasonable trier of fact could so find, “[t]he evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly 6 Case: 14-10174 Date Filed: 02/24/2015 Page: 7 of 7 inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt.” United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted). We agree with the district court. The conduct depicted in exhibit 4 – with which Bailey was charged in Count Four – clearly shows Bailey inducing and enticing S.C. to masturbate. That conduct falls within the plain meaning of the language of the statute. The statute requires only that the defendant “induce” or “entice” the minor to masturbate; it does not require that the effort be successful. Bailey cites no case to the contrary. Moreover, other evidence before the jury bolsters the Government’s argument that Bailey was intending to induce and entice S.C. to masturbate. For instance, there is Bailey’s voice-over on the recording, telling the victim to hurry up and masturbate; the money that he gave her; and the notes he left her, instructing her where and when to do so. In light of this holding, we need not address the Government’s other theories to support the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to Count Four. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 7