ARTHUR COLEMAN v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Battaglia, April 26, 2018,
Human Trafficking – It is illegal to “persuade or entice” a minor to leave her home to engage in prostitution even if she has worked as a prostitute previously
The years in this opinion are… questionable
Facts:
Howard County Police receiving information that A.M., a 13-year-old female in the custody of the Howard County Department of Social Services, had run away and was engaged in prostitution.
A vice detective posing as a young female contacted A.M. on social media and arranged to meet up with her to go to a “party” in Elkridge where the two of them could engage in prostitution.
A.M. and another juvenile female arrived at the meet-up location in a car driven by Coleman.
Coleman was arrested. Coleman’s phone contained a list of contacts sorted into “clients” and “workers.” A.M.’s contact information in Coleman’s phone listed her as a “Worker” and included her photograph.
Text messages from Coleman’s phone showed communication between him and A.M. around that time asking if she was available to “party,” asking did she “want to make some money,” and would she be willing to participate in a “freak party,” which he told her was not for “shy girls” because, as he explained, it was a party in which everyone has sex in one room at the same time. Coleman’s texts showed that he wanted her to be his “little partner” in their prostitution venture. He also asked her to bring other girls for the party that night.
When he went to pick up A.M., she gave her “home” address as 940 N. Eden St. in Baltimore. In another text, he asked her if she could “stay and make money or you got to go home?”
An ad for the party was found on Backpage from an e-mail address associated with Coleman’s phone. The ad, titled “Saturday Night Adult Freak Party, Tattoo Party,” included A.M.’s photograph, and advertised a party of fifteen girls with a $30.00 entry fee.
Coleman admitted to police that he picked A.M. up from Baltimore to take her to a party, but he denied knowing anything else.
Coleman was charged and convicted of persuading an individual under the age of 16 years from the individual’s guardian for the purpose of prostitution as well as other charges.
Coleman challenged the conviction, arguing that A.M. had already left her home, so he didn’t “persuade” her to do so, and that the statute only applies to minors that aren’t already prostitutes.
Held: The Court of Special Appeals disagreed, finding that the crime prohibits anyone persuading a minor under 16 to leave home to engage in prostitution regardless of whether the minor had done so previously.
Human Trafficking – A child’s “home” refers to wherever she is currently residing.
From the Case: Because Coleman’s text messages with A.M. showed that she texted him that her “home” was on Eden St. and included a message from Coleman asking if A.M. wanted to work as a prostitute or if she “got to go home,” “we reject Coleman’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had persuaded A.M. from her “home,” where he understood A.M. to be.”
Human Trafficking – “Prostitute” is not a status under the law prohibiting enticing a minor; it is an action which can occur more than once.
Human Trafficking – The crime of persuading a child under 16 to leave home for purpose of prostitution applies regardless of whether the child has done so previously.
From the Case: “We find no evidence in the legislative history to support Coleman’s position that the law was intended to apply only to a perpetrator who convinces a child, who has not already left home, to leave home, and begin prostituting for the first time.” The Court rejected Coleman’s “damaged goods” theory as “unsupported by its legislative history and antithetical to the statute’s purpose of punishing traffickers who exploit children by persuading or enticing them to leave home to engage in prostitution, including those children who have been victims of sexual exploitation in the past.”