United States v. Shawn Engle
676 F.3d 405 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) is a continuing offense, and venue is proper in any district into which the resulting visual depiction is transported, even if the underlying acts of enticement and production occurred in a different district.
Facts:
- In 2008, Shawn Engle, an 80-year-old resident of Virginia, began communicating online and by phone with A.M., a 17-year-old living in Pennsylvania.
- During their communications, Engle sent naked photographs of himself to A.M.
- Engle traveled from Virginia to Pennsylvania on two occasions to visit A.M.
- On his second visit to Pennsylvania, Engle used a video camera to record himself and A.M. engaged in sexual intercourse.
- Engle then transported the sexually explicit recording from Pennsylvania back to Virginia.
- Law enforcement officers later discovered the recording during a search of Engle's vehicle in Virginia.
Procedural Posture:
- Shawn Engle was indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (a federal trial court) for sexual exploitation of a minor (Count 1) and other offenses.
- Before trial, Engle filed a motion to dismiss Count 1, arguing that venue was improper in Virginia because the criminal conduct occurred in Pennsylvania.
- The district court denied Engle's motion, ruling that the charge constituted a 'continuing offense' for which venue was proper in Virginia.
- A federal jury subsequently convicted Engle on Count 1.
- Engle (as appellant) appealed his conviction on Count 1 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, challenging the district court's venue ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does venue for a charge of sexual exploitation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) properly lie in a federal district where the defendant transported the resulting illicit visual depiction, even though the minor was enticed and the depiction was created in a different district?
Opinions:
Majority - Shedd, Circuit Judge
Yes. Venue properly lies in a district where the defendant transported the illicit visual depiction because the offense is a continuing offense under federal venue statutes. The court held that a violation of § 2251(a) that involves transporting a visual depiction across state lines is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), which provides that an offense involving interstate transportation may be prosecuted in any district 'from, through, or into which such commerce ... moves.' Because Engle transported the video he created in Pennsylvania into the Eastern District of Virginia, that district was a proper venue for the prosecution. The court found this reasoning consistent with decisions from other circuits, such as the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Kapordelis. As an alternative rationale, the court found venue was also proper under the first paragraph of § 3237(a) because the crime of enticement 'began' in Virginia. The court reasoned that Engle's initial sexually themed communications and sending of naked photographs from Virginia constituted 'grooming' and were part of the effort to persuade A.M., thus establishing that an essential act of the offense occurred in Virginia.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the 'continuing offense' doctrine to crimes involving the creation and transportation of child pornography, giving prosecutors significant flexibility in choosing where to file charges. By treating the transportation of the illicit material as a continuation of the offense, the court allows prosecution in the destination district, which may be more convenient for law enforcement or have a greater connection to the defendant's base of operations. The court's alternative holding—that preliminary 'grooming' activities like sending emails from a district are sufficient to establish venue there—further broadens prosecutorial options and makes it harder for defendants to challenge venue by arguing the core criminal act occurred elsewhere.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Shawn Engle