The People of the State of New York v. David Sheard
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law issue involving attempted child sex trafficking and attempted promoting prostitution, specifically whether post-rescue communications with a 16-year-old victim were legally sufficient to establish attempt crimes.
The trial court vacated the jury's guilty verdicts on attempted sex trafficking of a child and attempted promoting prostitution in the second degree, and after granting the People's motion to reargue, adhered to that dismissal.
The Appellate Division reversed the order vacating the two attempt convictions, denied the defendant's motion in full, reinstated the guilty verdicts on those counts, and remitted for resentencing.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court found legally sufficient proof that the defendant's pre-rescue relationship with A.J. was to profit from her prostitution and that his post-rescue messages, including buyer requests for "Candy" and repeated requests that she return, brought his conduct dangerously close to reestablishing that criminal arrangement.
Background
The 34-year-old defendant had operated a sex work business using 16-year-old A.J., known as "Candy," as a sex worker. After an undercover police operation removed A.J. from that situation, the defendant continued communicating with her electronically. Trial evidence showed that he sent screenshots of messages from sex buyers asking for "Candy" and repeatedly urged her to come back to him. A jury convicted him of promoting prostitution in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child, attempted sex trafficking of a child under Penal Law § 230.34-a(1) [sex trafficking of a child by a person age twenty-one or older who intentionally advances or profits from the prostitution of a person under eighteen], attempted promoting prostitution in the second degree under Penal Law § 230.30(2) [knowingly advancing or profiting from the prostitution of a person under eighteen], and attempted endangering the welfare of a child.
Lower Court Decision
After the verdict, Supreme Court, Bronx County, orally granted the defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal on the counts of attempted sex trafficking of a child and attempted promoting prostitution in the second degree. The People moved to reargue, and although the court granted reargument, it adhered to its original decision vacating those two guilty verdicts.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed on the law. It held that the evidence was legally sufficient because a rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant sought to restore the same exploitative prostitution relationship that had existed before A.J. was rescued. The court rejected the argument that the defendant had not come dangerously close to committing the intended crimes, concluding that his conduct carried the project forward within dangerous proximity to the criminal end. It therefore denied the defendant's motion in its entirety, reinstated the verdicts on attempted sex trafficking of a child and attempted promoting prostitution in the second degree, and remitted the matter for resentencing.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces New York's strict approach to attempt liability in prostitution and trafficking cases. It confirms that attempt can be established even without completion of the underlying exploitation, so long as the defendant's conduct, viewed in context, comes dangerously close to reviving or carrying out the criminal scheme. The court emphasized that communications with a minor victim after police intervention may constitute legally sufficient proof of an attempted trafficking or promoting prostitution offense when they are aimed at resuming the prior profit-making arrangement.
Post-rescue efforts to lure a minor back into prostitution, especially by referencing customer demand and urging the minor to return, can support attempt convictions for child sex trafficking and promoting prostitution when the evidence shows dangerous proximity to reestablishing the prior exploitative relationship.