Opinion ID: 2721127
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Pringler first argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for aiding and abetting the sex trafficking of a minor. Ordinarily we review a challenge to the sufficiency of a jury verdict by asking “‘whether a rational jury could have found each essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 330 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Pennington, 20 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 1994)). The parties agree, though, that Pringler’s trial counsel failed to move for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s case. As a result, we review this unpreserved claim instead for plain error and reject the challenge “unless the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt or if the evidence is so tenuous that a conviction is shocking” or amounts to “a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 331 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The essential elements of sex trafficking of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) are (1) that the defendant knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, obtained or maintained [the victim]; (2) that the recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, providing, obtaining or maintaining of [the victim] was in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, and (3) that the defendant committed such act knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact . . . that [the victim] was under the age of 18 years of age and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act. 4 Case: 12-10029 Document: 00512747031 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/26/2014 No. 12-10029 United States v. Garcia–Gonzalez, 714 F.3d 306, 312 (5th Cir. 2013) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). To hold a defendant liable for aiding and abetting an offense, the government must show that elements of the substantive offense occurred and that the defendant “associate[d] with the criminal activity, participate[d] in it, and acted to help it succeed.” United States v. Delgarza–Villareal, 141 F.3d 133, 140 (5th Cir. 1997). Pringler claims on appeal that the government has not proven the elements necessary to establish aiding and abetting liability, because it has only shown his “mere presence” at the scene of the crime. He supports this argument by pointing to the fact that Norman and B.L. advertised themselves as “independent” prostitutes on websites. We disagree. The record is not devoid of evidence to support the jury’s verdict and show Pringler’s integral role in the criminal venture. Pringler took the money that Norman and B.L. earned from their prostitution and used some of it to pay for hotel rooms where the women met their patrons. Pringler bought the laptop Norman and B.L. used to advertise their services. He drove Norman and B.L. to “outcall” appointments, and he took photographs of Norman, which he had planned for use in advertisements. Therefore, we hold that the record is not so insufficient that the conviction amounts to plain error.