Opinion ID: 222008
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Berk also argues that his motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted because the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove that he attempted to persuade, induce, entice or coerce a minor, given that the government's proof involved only contact with adults. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, Dwinells, 508 F.3d at 72, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Section 2422(b) criminalizes an intentional attempt to achieve a mental state  a minor's assent  regardless of the accused's intentions vis-à-vis the actual consummation of sexual activities with the minor. Dwinells, 508 F.3d at 71 (emphasis in original). The crime of attempt requires an intention to commit the substantive offense  here, critically, to persuade, induce, entice and coerce  and a substantial step towards its commission. United States v. Burgos, 254 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir.2001). A `substantial step' is less than what is necessary to complete the substantive crime, but more than `mere preparation.' United States v. Piesak, 521 F.3d 41, 44 (1st Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 215 F.3d 110, 116 (1st Cir.2000)); see also United States v. Goetzke, 494 F.3d 1231, 1237 (9th Cir. 2007) (observing that a `substantial step'... cross[es] the line between preparation and attempt by unequivocally demonstrating that the crime will take place unless interrupted by independent circumstances (internal quotation marks omitted)). Finally, a defendant can be convicted even if the relevant communications are with an intermediary. United States v. Lanzon, 639 F.3d 1293, 1299 (11th Cir.2011); United States v. Douglas, 626 F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir.2010), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1024, 178 L.Ed.2d 847 (2011); United States v. Nestor, 574 F.3d 159, 162 (3d Cir.2009), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1537, 176 L.Ed.2d 133 (2010). Berk argues that the evidence supports no more than a finding that his internet communications with Ashley Dame never went beyond mere preparation. We disagree. The trial court could easily have found that the explicit communications with a person whom Berk thought was the father of a 12-year old girl about renting her out, along with the concomitant request to see what the girl thought of the idea, were part of an attempt to achieve the requisite mental state in the minor. Beyond that, we have little trouble concluding that actually meeting with the girl's father and discussing with him graphic sexual details and prices goes far beyond mere preparation. [8] To be sure, the evidence against Berk with respect to the Jensen matter is not as clear-cut. The record reflects, however, that after responding to Dorothy Jensen's classified ad, Berk not only steered the ensuing conversation away from Jensen's search for housing and towards paying for sex with Jensen's daughter, but he also helped to propel the scheme by finding and sending to Jensen leads about homes that he said she could rent, even though he was not in the real estate business. In addition, Berk exchanged or attempted to exchange photos with Jensen, and he proposed meeting Jensen in order to discuss details of his plans to help Jensen earn money for housing. Even though, unlike in the Dame matter, no such meeting ever took place, it was only the fortuity of Jensen seeing Berk's face and modus operandi on television that prevented it. These actions go beyond mere talk or hot air. Cf. United States v. Gladish, 536 F.3d 646, 647 (7th Cir.2008) (overturning conviction after finding that explicit sexual talk alone was not a substantial step). Nor, as Berk suggests, is travel to a meeting necessarily an element of an attempt. See United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639-40 (6th Cir.2000) (finding sufficient evidence of substantial step where defendant did not meet with minors, but proposed doing so in order to have sex with them). In sum, the indictment was not fatally defective and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions in both the Jensen and Dame matters. Berk also interposed a challenge to his sentence that is dependent on invalidating his conviction. The predicate having failed, we need not address the argument. Affirmed.