United States v. Young
613 F.3d 735 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual cannot abandon an attempt to commit a crime once the attempt has been completed, and entrapment does not apply if the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. The standard of review for the refusal of a proffered jury instruction that denies a legal defense is de novo.
Facts:
- James William Young, a 33-year-old married father of three and high school band director, entered an adult online chat room and communicated with an undercover officer posing as a 14-year-old girl named Emily.
- Young misrepresented his identity, claiming to be an engineer at Alliant Energy, discussed meeting Emily, and their conversations became sexually explicit.
- Young arranged to meet Emily at a Super 8 Motel, attempted to reserve a room, drove to the motel, and was arrested by undercover officers at the designated meeting location.
- Young was found with a condom, a note with Emily's name, and bubble bath, items he had discussed bringing in his online chats with Emily.
- Young was convicted of attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity and challenged his conviction, the refusal of his proffered jury instructions on abandonment and entrapment, and his sentencing enhancements.
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 a defendant have a valid abandonment defense to the completed crime of attempt, and does the entrapment defense apply if the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepherd, Circuit Judge
No, a defendant cannot abandon an attempt to commit a crime after the attempt has been completed because the crime of attempt itself has already been committed. The essential elements of attempt are intent to commit the predicate offense and conduct that is a substantial step toward its commission. Once Young completed the essential elements of his attempt by having the requisite intent and taking substantial steps like arranging the meeting, driving to the motel, and attempting to rent a room, he committed the completed crime of attempt and cannot claim abandonment after the fact. No, the entrapment defense does not apply if the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime, as evidenced by the defendant's ready response to the government's inducement with little hesitation. The evidence of Young's numerous other internet chats attempting to arrange meetings with minors for sex, along with how quickly he responded to the undercover officer's overtures, demonstrate Young's clear predisposition to commit the crime of enticement. The standard of review for the refusal of a proffered jury instruction that denies a legal defense is de novo. The district court committed no error in refusing Young's proffered abandonment and entrapment instructions because the evidence did not support those defenses as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case establishes that the defenses of abandonment and entrapment are not available once a defendant completes the crime of attempt by having the requisite intent and taking a substantial step towards the commission of the underlying offense. It underscores that predisposition to commit a crime, demonstrated through the defendant's ready response to inducement and evidence of other similar conduct, will defeat an entrapment defense. The case also clarifies that the refusal of a proffered jury instruction denying a legal defense is reviewed de novo. The decision may impact future cases involving online enticement of minors and the availability of certain defenses once the elements of attempt are met.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Young