Background
Todd Allen Stafford, then 59, met 15-year-old M.V. through an online dating and hookup service on which M.V.’s profile listed his age as 18. Stafford met M.V. at a Michigan hotel in April 2023 and again on July 1, 2023. M.V. testified that they engaged in oral and anal sex during the July meeting; Stafford denied any sexual activity. After M.V.’s parents discovered sexually explicit messages, M.V.’s father and police continued communicating with Stafford while posing as M.V. Officers arrested Stafford when he arrived for another planned meeting on July 21.
A jury convicted Stafford of coercion and enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) and two counts of interstate travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct under § 2423(b). The district court sentenced him to 156 months in prison and five years of supervised release. On appeal, Stafford challenged the jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 of sexually explicit portions of M.V.’s online profile.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed Count 1. Judge Clay’s opinion for the court held that § 2422(b), using Michigan’s third-degree criminal-sexual-conduct statute as the predicate offense, required proof that Stafford knew M.V. was under 18 and that M.V. was in fact 13, 14, or 15—not that Stafford knew M.V. was under 16. The jury instructions correctly stated those requirements, and M.V.’s testimony and other evidence concerning school, a curfew, transportation, and concealed messages sufficiently supported the verdict.
The court also held that the district court properly excluded the sexually explicit portions of M.V.’s profile under Rule 412. Those portions concerned sexual behavior or predisposition, even though Stafford proposed using them to support his claimed belief that M.V. was an adult and to challenge M.V.’s credibility. Stafford did not preserve his argument that the court should have held an in camera hearing because he did not follow Rule 412(c)’s procedural requirements.
As to Counts 2 and 3, Judge Moore’s majority opinion, joined by Judge White, held that when § 2243(a) supplies the predicate offense for a § 2423(b) charge, the government must prove that the defendant traveled intending to engage in sexual activity with a person under 16. Because the jury was instructed only that Stafford knew, had reason to know, or thought the person was under 18, the court vacated those convictions and remanded for further proceedings. Judge White separately concurred in both majority opinions; although she did not adopt every aspect of Judge Moore’s textual analysis, she agreed that § 2423(b)’s intent requirement extended to the under-16 component of the charged predicate offense. Judge Clay dissented from the disposition of Counts 2 and 3, reasoning that the government needed to prove intent concerning the under-18 threshold in § 2423, while the victim’s actual age satisfied § 2243(a)’s separate under-16 requirement.
Key Takeaways
- For a § 2422(b) charge predicated on Michigan law, the government had to prove Stafford knew the victim was under 18, not that he knew the victim was under 16.
- A § 2423(b) charge using § 2243(a) as the predicate requires proof that the defendant intended sexual activity with a person under 16.
- Sexually explicit dating-profile material may fall within Rule 412 even when offered to show the defendant’s state of mind or impeach the victim.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the age-related mens rea required by two neighboring federal sex-crime statutes. It leaves Stafford’s enticement conviction intact but requires further proceedings on the interstate-travel counts because the jury was not asked to find the intent regarding age that the panel majority concluded § 2423(b) requires.
The separate concurrence and partial dissent also expose a disagreement over whether the intent element of § 2423(b) reaches the age requirement of a predicate Chapter 109A offense—a consequential issue for prosecutions involving interstate travel, minors, and undercover operations.