Coercion & enticement of a minor; 18 USC § 2422(b); CSC III; MCL 750.520d(1)(a); Jury instructions; Invited error; Plain error; Mens rea as to minor status; United States v Hart; United States v Deakins; United States v Buddi; Sufficiency of the evidence; Rape-shield rule; FRE 412; Online dating profile; United States v Ogden; Interstate travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct; § 2423(b); Illicit sexual conduct; § 2423(g)(1); Sexual abuse of a minor; § 2243(a); Specific intent; United States v Murphy (2d Cir)

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that the Count 1 jury instructions were legally correct and the evidence sufficient, that the district court properly excluded sexually explicit portions of the minor’s online profile, and that the instructions on Counts 2 and 3 misstated the intent required under § 2423(b). A jury convicted defendant of coercion and enticement of a minor under § 2422(b) and two counts of interstate travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct under § 2423(b), arising from his online communications and meetings with 15-year-old M.V. The district court excluded sexually explicit portions of M.V.’s dating profile, and declined to give defendant’s proposed affirmative-defense instruction for Counts 2 and 3. On appeal, the court first held that the Count 1 instruction was correct because the government had to prove that (1) defendant knew M.V. was under 18, and (2) that M.V. was in fact 13, 14, or 15, but did not have to prove defendant knew the specific predicate-offense age because “the underlying [state] criminal offenses are not elements of the federal offense.” The court also held that the Count 1 evidence was sufficient because M.V. testified that he was 15 and told defendant he was under 18, and additional evidence showed defendant knew facts consistent with minor status, including high school, summer classes, a curfew, and needing transportation. The court next held that FRE 412 barred the sexually explicit parts of M.V.’s profile because they were “precisely the sort of” sexual-behavior evidence the rule prohibits, and defendant’s proposed uses still asked the jury to infer sexual propensity. As to Counts 2 and 3, the separate majority held that when § 2243(a) is the predicate chapter 109A offense, § 2423(b) requires proof that defendant intended to engage in a sexual act with someone at least 12 but under 16, not merely someone under 18. Because the jury was instructed that it could convict if defendant knew, had reason to know, or thought M.V. was under 18, “a jury could have convicted Stafford for conduct that did not in fact violate § 2423(b).” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.