Background
A jury convicted Jayden Debevec of attempted enticement of a minor in violation of Section eighteen thousand two hundred twenty-two, subsection B of Title eighteen of the United States Code. The district court sentenced him to one hundred twenty months in prison followed by five years of supervised release. Debevec appealed, arguing entrapment and challenging the admission of Rule four zero four B evidence.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the denial of the motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo. It found that the defendant initiated contact and introduced the topic of sex within fourteen hours. The court determined the undercover officer’s conduct did not constitute inducement because the defendant was the first to suggest meeting and engaging in sexual acts. Regarding the evidence, the court held that Amazon search history was relevant to intent and sufficiently close in time. The court concluded that even if the WhatsApp conversation was improperly admitted, the error was harmless.
Sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Debevec’s enticement of a minor was not induced by the government.
Opinion at page seven
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that defendants who initiate contact and escalate conversations with undercover minors are unlikely to succeed on entrapment defenses. It also clarifies that internet search history, even for animated content, may be admissible to prove intent in child enticement cases.