18 U.S.C. § 2243

Sexual abuse of a minor, a ward, or an individual in Federal custody

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Of a Minor.—Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who—(1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and(2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging;or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.(b)Of a Ward.—Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is—(1) in official detention; and(2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging;or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.(c)Of an Individual in Federal Custody.—Whoever, while acting in their capacity as a Federal law enforcement officer, knowingly engages in a sexual act with an individual who is under arrest, under supervision, in detention, or in Federal custody, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.(d)Defenses.—In a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section, it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the other person had attained the age of 16 years.(e)State of Mind Proof Requirement.—In a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew—(1) the age of the other person engaging in the sexual act; or(2) that the requisite age difference existed between the persons so engaging.(Added Pub. L. 99–646, § 87(b), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3621, and Pub. L. 99–654, § 2, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3661; amended Pub. L. 101–647, title III, § 322, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4818; Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, § 101(a) [title I, § 121[7(c)]], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009–26, 3009–31; Pub. L. 105–314, title III, § 301(b), Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2979; Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, § 1177(a)(4), (b)(1), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3125; Pub. L. 109–248, title II, § 207, July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 615; Pub. L. 110–161, div. E, title V, § 554, Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2082; Pub. L. 117–103, div. W, title XII, § 1202(c)(1), title XIII, § 1312, Mar. 15, 2022, 136 Stat. 924, 935.)Editorial NotesCodification

Pub. L. 99–646 and Pub. L. 99–654 added identical sections 2243.

Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–103, § 1202(c)(1)(A), substituted “Sexual abuse of a minor, a ward, or an individual in Federal custody” for “Sexual abuse of a minor or ward” in section catchline.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 117–103, § 1202(c)(1)(C), added subsec. (c). Former subsec. (c) redesignated (d).

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 117–103, § 1312, struck out par. (1) designation before “In a prosecution” and struck out par. (2) which read as follows: “In a prosecution under this section, it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the persons engaging in the sexual act were at that time married to each other.” Amendment was directed to subsec. (c) but executed to subsec. (d) to reflect the probable intent of Congress and the intervening redesignation of subsec. (c) as (d) by Pub. L. 117–103, § 1202(c)(1)(B). See below.

Pub. L. 117–103, § 1202(c)(1)(B), redesignated subsec. (c) as (d). Former subsec. (d) redesignated (e).

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 117–103, § 1202(c)(1)(B), redesignated subsec. (d) as (e).

2007—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 110–161 substituted “the head of any Federal department or agency” for “the Attorney General” in introductory provisions.

2006—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–248, § 207(2), inserted comma after “Attorney General” in introductory provisions.

Pub. L. 109–162, § 1177(a)(4), inserted “or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General” after “in a Federal prison,” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–248 inserted comma after “Attorney General” in introductory provisions and substituted “15 years” for “five years” in concluding provisions.

Pub. L. 109–162, § 1177(a)(4), (b)(1), inserted “or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General” after “in a Federal prison,” in introductory provisions and substituted “five years” for “one year” in concluding provisions.

1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–314 struck out “crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or” after “Whoever” in introductory provisions.

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–208 inserted “crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or” after “Whoever” in introductory provisions.

1990—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–647 substituted “15 years” for “five years” in concluding provisions.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2022 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 117–103 not effective until Oct. 1 of the first fiscal year beginning after Mar. 15, 2022, see section 4(a) of div. W of Pub. L. 117–103, set out as an Effective Date note under section 6851 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 463 cases (67 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: United States v. Wilson, 66 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Wilson, 66 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F. 2008). · cites it 17× “8 The latter model is mirrored both in a charged violation for carnal knowledge and other sexual offenses under Article 120, UCMJ, and the federal civilian analog, 18 U.S.C. § 2243 (d) (2000). Neither requires that the government prove the accused knew the age of the child.”

United States v. Michael Begin, 696 F.3d 405 (3rd Cir. 2012). · cites it 12× “See 18 U.S.C. § 2243 (a). He argued that it would be inequitable to impose “a longer sentence of imprisonment for using a means of interstate communication to help facilitate the commission of a crime than would apply to the crime facilitated,” and he drew an analogy to the…”

United States v. Johnny Escalante, 933 F.3d 395 (5th Cir. 2019). · cites it 12× “Specifically, Escalante pointed to the facts that: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 2243 (c)(1) permits an affirmative defense if the defendant reasonably believed the victim to be over 16, whereas Utah's relevant statute did not; and (2) 18 U.”

United States v. Jorge Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 6× “See 18 U.S.C. § 2243 (a). A final example is that tabulating jurisdictions may not account for whether the most populous states have chosen to adhere to the “majority” view.”

Nelida Cabeda v. Attorney Gen. United States, 971 F.3d 165 (3rd Cir. 2020). · cites it 8× “Third and finally, our consideration of a closely related statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2243 , confirms that, to prove sexual abuse of a minor, the prosecution must show that the perpetrator acted knowingly.”

Juan Esquivel-Quintana v. Loretta E. Lynch, 810 F.3d 1019 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “§ 1101 (a)(43)(A), not 18 U.S.C. § 2243 (a),” and upheld the removal of an alien convicted under the precise California statute involved in this case.”

United States v. James Bruguier, 735 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2013). · cites it 8× “§ 2241 (a); and sexual abuse of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2243 (a).1 The district court sentenced him to 360 months imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release.”

United States v. Murphy, 942 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 10× “See 18 U.S.C. § 2243 (a). As the parties stipulated, however, the victim told the defendant she was 16 years old and the defendant told detectives he believed her to be 16 years old.”

United States v. Michael Lindsay, 931 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 6× “LINDSAY 18 U.S.C. § 2243 (a) (2012). 6 Altogether then, section 2423(c) criminalized non- commercial sexual activity between a United States citizen of Lindsay’s age and a minor between the ages of 12 and 16, if the citizen also traveled in foreign commerce.”

United States v. Aaron Wikkerink, 841 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “§ 2242 ), arid sexual abuse of a minor ( 18 U.S.C. § 2243 (a)). Collectively, these federal offenses criminalize any “sexual act” 5 : (1) with a child under age twelve, id.”

United States v. Wilfredo Lopez, 4 F.4th 706 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 4× “As Lopez himself acknowledged at oral argument, the government could have charged him with enticement in violation of § 2422(b), with the predicate offense of sexual abuse of a minor within the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of…”

United States v. Milton Gatlin, 216 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2000). · cites it 9× “Amon, Judge), convicting him, following a guilty plea, of sexually abusing a minor while within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2243 (a). On appeal, Gatlin argues, inter alia, that the District Court lacked…”

Show all 463 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a) — 5 cases

Juan Esquivel-Quintana v. Loretta E. Lynch, 810 F.3d 1019 (6th Cir. 2016). “§ 1101 (a)(43)(A), not 18 U.S.C. § 2243 (a),” and upheld the removal of an alien convicted under the precise California statute involved in this case.”

United States v. Johnny Escalante, 933 F.3d 395 (5th Cir. 2019). “Specifically, Escalante pointed to the facts that: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 2243 (c)(1) permits an affirmative defense if the defendant reasonably believed the victim to be over 16, whereas Utah's relevant statute did not; and (2) 18 U.”

United States v. Plenty Chief, 561 F.3d 846 (8th Cir. 2009).

United States v. Devine, 48 F. App'x 249 (9th Cir. 2002).

United States v. Rubio (4th Cir. 1996).

— 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a)(3) — 1 case

United States v. William Dahl, 833 F.3d 345 (3rd Cir. 2016).

— 18 U.S.C. § 2243(d) — 1 case

State of Louisiana v. Dominick Sims, 195 So. 3d 441 (La. 2016).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.