Clarence Eric Powell v. United States

Appellant was convicted of transporting a girl from Texas to Phoenix, Arizona, for purposes of prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2421 . The interstate journey was admitted. The sole issue was appellant’s intent.

The trial court properly instructed the jury that the immoral purpose renders the interstate transportation illegal, and must therefore exist before the journey ends and supply the dominant motive for the trip. The court also properly instructed the jury that the necessary intent may be established by circumstantial evidence, including evidence of conduct of the parties after the journey has ended.

The jury retired at 4:12 p. m. At 8:40 p. m. the jury requested further instructions. The jury’s request and the couidfs response were as follows:

The jury retired. A guilty verdict was returned five minutes later.

The meaning of the jury’s inquiry was uncertain. All that the inquiry made clear was that the jury was confused as to the legal standards to be applied in resolving the central factual issue upon which defendant’s guilt or innocence depended. The court made no eifort to discover the nature of the jury’s misunderstanding. Instead, the court assumed,…