Case: 17-13495 Date Filed: 07/12/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13495
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:16-cr-00251-RBD-GJK-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STEVEN ARTHUR MORRILL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 12, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, BRANCH and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-13495 Date Filed: 07/12/2018 Page: 2 of 3
Steven Morrill appeals his conviction for attempting to induce a minor to
engage in sexual activity. 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Morrill argues that the district court
erred by instructing the jury that “induce means to stimulate the occurrence of or to
cause” because that definition could have caused him to be convicted for causing a
minor to engage in sexual activity instead of causing the minor to assent to engage
in unlawful sexual activity. We affirm.
“We review de novo the legal correctness of jury instructions, but we review
the district court’s phrasing for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Seabrooks,
839 F.3d 1326, 1332 (11th Cir. 2016). “We review jury instructions ‘to determine
whether the instructions misstated the law or misled the jury to the prejudice of the
objecting party.’” Id. at 1333 (quoting United States v. Gibson, 708 F.3d 1256,
1275 (11th Cir. 2013)).
Section 2422(b) punishes “[w]hoever, using the mail or any facility or
means of interstate or foreign commerce, . . . knowingly persuades, induces,
entices, or coerces any individual . . . [less than] 18 years [old], to engage in
prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a
criminal offense, or attempts to do so . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). An attempt
occurs if the defendant, “using the internet, act[s] with a specific intent to
persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in unlawful sex.” United
States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004). We have explained that
2
Case: 17-13495 Date Filed: 07/12/2018 Page: 3 of 3
“induce” means “to stimulate the occurrence of; cause.” Id. at 1287. “With regard
to intent, the government must prove that the defendant intended to cause assent on
the part of the minor, not that he acted with the specific intent to engage in sexual
activity.” United States v. Lee, 603 F.3d 904, 914 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). We held in Murrell that, “[b]y negotiating
with the purported father of a minor, [the defendant] attempted to stimulate or
cause the minor to engage in sexual activity with him,” which “fit[] squarely within
the definition of ‘induce.’” 368 F.3d at 1287.
The district court did not err in instructing the jury about the charged
offense. The district court correctly defined “induce” by employing the same
definition we used in Murrell. See United States v. Rutgerson, 822 F.3d 1223, 1232
(11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2158 (2017). And the district court did
not need to include the phrase “the assent of” in its definition. The district court
instructed the jury repeatedly that the government had to prove that Morrill was
guilty of “persuading, inducing, or enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity.”
The instructions required the jury to find that Morrill acted with the intent to
induce a minor, not with the intent to engage in sexual activity with a minor. See
Murrell, 368 F.3d at 1286.
We AFFIRM Morrill’s conviction.
3