Background
Garrin Michael Thompson was convicted by a jury of transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, aggravated sexual abuse of a minor in Indian Country, and coercion and enticement of a minor. The underlying facts involved Thompson sexually abusing his ten-year-old daughter in a Texas hotel room during a gymnastics trip and abusing other minors in Oklahoma. Thompson appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for the transportation charge regarding the required purpose of the travel and for the sexual abuse charge regarding his non-Indian status.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the statutory text of 18 U.S.C. Section 2423(a) requires only that the defendant transported the minor with intent that she engage in illicit sexual activity, rejecting the argument that the government must prove a dominant or compelling purpose. Regarding the charge of aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country, the court found that the government met its burden by presenting unchallenged testimony from Thompson’s wife and daughter that he was not an Indian. The court ruled that documentary evidence was not required to prove non-Indian status when credible family testimony stands uncontradicted.
Section 2423(a) does not require a person’s intent that a minor engage in illicit sexual conduct to be a dominant, compelling, or motivating purpose of transporting the minor for criminal liability to attach.
United States v. Thompson, 24-5052 (10th Cir. May 18, 2026)
What it means going forward
This decision clarifies the intent standard for federal transportation of minors charges, lowering the prosecution’s burden by removing the need to prove a dominant purpose. It also reinforces that unchallenged family testimony is sufficient to establish non-Indian status in federal criminal cases involving Indian Country jurisdiction.