Opinion ID: 4557737
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sexual Exploitation of a Child

Text: For the jury to convict Frommelt of sexual exploitation of a child under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), the government had to prove Frommelt “employ[ed], use[d], persuade[d], induce[d], entice[d], or coerce[d]” A.E. to engage in “sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Frommelt argues the government failed to meet its burden of proof in several respects. We are not persuaded. First, Frommelt argues the government did not prove A.E. engaged in any sexually explicit conduct. Sexually explicit conduct, for purposes of § 2251(a), includes sexual intercourse. The government’s theory was that the trial evidence showed Frommelt recorded himself engaged in sexual intercourse with A.E., and then sent that video to her using Facebook Messenger. 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(i) -6- (defining “sexually explicit conduct”). But the government was unable to produce that video at trial. It was only able to produce the Facebook message Frommelt sent to A.E., which included a thumbnail of the video with a play button superimposed on the image. This play button, Frommelt says, made it impossible to determine whether A.E. was engaged in sexual intercourse or any other sexually explicit conduct. And he claims the government presented no other evidence to support its theory. This argument neglects A.E.’s trial testimony. A.E. testified that after Frommelt gave her methamphetamine at his house, they had sex on the bed in his room, during which Frommelt was holding his phone. Then, when shown Frommelt’s Facebook message containing the thumbnail image, A.E. testified she clicked the play button after receiving the message. The video showed her and Frommelt engaged in sexual intercourse. Viewing this testimony and the thumbnail image in favor of the jury’s verdict, a reasonable juror could conclude A.E. engaged in sexually explicit conduct. So there was enough trial evidence to prove this element of the crime. See Sainz Navarrete, 955 F.3d at 718. Summarily, Frommelt also argues the government failed to prove the “purpose” element of the crime because the sexually explicit conduct was consensual, as if that somehow negates Frommelt’s illicit purpose. It does not. The government had to prove that “one of [Frommelt’s] dominant purposes was to produce [the] sexually explicit [video].” United States v. Raplinger, 555 F.3d 687, 693 (8th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Fortier, 956 F.3d 563, 567 (8th Cir. 2020). And the trial evidence showed Frommelt took pictures of A.E. before he asked her to have sex, video recorded them having sex, and then sent A.E. the video. Consensual or not, a reasonable juror could conclude that one of Frommelt’s dominant purposes for using A.E. to engage in sexually explicit conduct was to produce the video. So the trial evidence was not lacking in this regard either. -7- Citing no authority, Frommelt next argues the government had to prove he intended to “distribute,” a visual depiction of A.E. engaged in sexually explicit conduct, presumably to a third person. But § 2251(a) does not require this. Rather, the government can prove a violation of § 2251(a) by showing the illicit visual depiction “has actually been transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce.” See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). And Frommelt makes no argument that sending the explicit video through Facebook Messenger failed to satisfy this element of the crime. His “distribution” argument is therefore misplaced. Finally, Frommelt argues the government had to prove he somehow persuaded, induced, or enticed A.E. to engage in sexually explicit conduct. Because A.E. liked having her picture taken earlier in the night, Frommelt claims he did not persuade, induce, or entice her to participate in the making of the sexually explicit video. Arguably, he did by first giving her drugs. But in any case, persuasion, inducement, and enticement, although sufficient, are not necessary to the commission of the crime. See Fortier, 956 F.3d at 567 (“The statute contains a number of verbs that describe the actus reus of the offense, ranging from ‘employs’ and ‘uses’ to ‘persuades,’ ‘induces,’ ‘entices,’ and ‘coerces.’”) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)). The government’s theory was that Frommelt used A.E. to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction. See id. And as explained above, we conclude the government presented sufficient evidence to prove this theory of guilt. Frommelt is therefore not entitled to judgment of acquittal on his conviction for sexual exploitation of a child.