James Helms was convicted in Circuit Court, Duval County of deriving support from the proceeds of prostitution and transporting another individual for the purposes of prostitution. Defendant appealed and the District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed.

At trial, the evidence showed defendant managed an escort service which advertised on the internet. An undercover officer testified he scheduled a meeting with one of defendant’s escorts . . . and that they arranged to meet at an apartment commonly used by law enforcement for undercover operations.

The officer stated that on the day of the meeting, defendant arrived at the apartment with the escort and accepted the money.

At this point, an audiotape of the officer’s interaction with defendant and the escort was introduced over objection.

The audiotape was played for the jury and revealed that defendant asked for the \($250\), then left the apartment after receiving the money. Over the audiotape, the officer then asked if the escort would engage in sexual activity. She agreed, prompting other officers, who had been monitoring the situation, to enter the apartment and arrest her.

Defendant was arrested separately.

Throughout the trial, defendant denied that he knew or had reasonable cause to believe prostitution would occur when he left the apartment. To support this assertion, he testified each of the escorts working for him had signed a contract forbidding prostitution. He pointed out that each of the advertisements in evidence contained a disclaimer with slight variations of the following:

[m]oney exchanged is for time, companionship, and legal services such as nude modeling, erotic dancing, body rub, etc. Anything else that may occur is between two consenting adults and has not been promised or contracted for!

Defendant testified the advertisements featured scantily-clad women not to imply prostitution would occur, but simply because such images attracted clients, as is the case with many businesses catering to men. Regarding this particular case, defendant emphasized to the jury that he was not privy to any conversations regarding sexual activity while he was in the apartment.

Ultimately, the jury rejected defendant’s claims and explanations and found him guilty as charged. This appeal followed.

. . . An element of both of the charges for which defendant was convicted required the State to prove he knew or had reasonable cause to believe prostitution might occur. Section 796.05(1) states it shall be unlawful for any person “with reasonable belief or knowing another person is engaged in prostitution” to derive support from the earnings of such prostitution. Section 796.07(2)(d) prohibits any person from transporting another “with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the purpose of such [ ] transporting is prostitution.” The statute goes on to define “prostitution” as “the giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire but excludes sexual activity between spouses.” § 796.07(1)(a), Fla. Stat. The State offered direct evidence that defendant took the \($250\) through the testimony of the undercover officer. This is direct evidence the jury could accept to establish prostitution, and was obviously material to both offenses.

. . . The only real question for the jury in this case was defendant’s state of mind . . . Several points can be made to illustrate how the evidence here clearly supported such an inference. First, the internet advertisements strongly implied sexual activity would occur if the escort was hired . . . Second, the very disclaimers that defendant relies on for his defense could be accepted by the jury as further evidence of guilt.

Although the disclaimers stated the escort service was not for prostitution, the jury was not required to accept them at face value. Given the substance of the advertisements, it would be rational for a juror to infer that the disclaimers were bogus.

The jury could reasonably infer the disclaimers were either an attempt to emphasize that the escort service’s primary purpose was prostitution or designed to be used as a defense if defendant was ever arrested.

Third, the jury may have used the evidence of defendant’s actions preceding his arrest to infer guilty knowledge on defendant’s part. Defendant admitted to driving the escort to an apartment to meet with an adult male neither of them knew. This adult male wanted to pay \($250\) per hour for the escort’s “companionship” after seeing the advertisements. The escorting was to occur only within the apartment. Defendant testified he took the money, then left the escort alone in the apartment with the unknown male.

Viewing the conduct in conjunction with the substance of the advertisements, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the State, as we are compelled to do, we conclude a rational trier of fact could reasonably infer that defendant knew or had “reasonable cause to believe” the escort would engage in prostitution. Finally, if we adopted defendant’s argument, it would have bizarre consequences . . . In essence, defendant argues his self-serving statements and actions must be accepted by the jury, along with each inference he would like to be drawn.

If this were the law, any defendant, by planning ahead, could avoid a conviction for any crime requiring proof of a certain state of mind. The burglar could buy an advertisement in the local paper declaring he “would never enter a home with the intent of committing a crime therein.” The would-be murderer, with a little planning, could post on the internet that although he planned to hurt the victim, he had “absolutely no premeditated intent to kill.”

These examples point out the folly of arguing that self-serving statements denying intent will, as a matter of law, prevent conviction. Here, the only hope defendant had for an acquittal was that the jury would find his disclaimers, contracts, and denials persuasive. They didn’t. The denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal must be affirmed.

Questions:-

1. According to the criminal statute, what mens rea is required to convict the defendant?
2. Every phone book in America has “escort services” listed. Are all of these companies committing a crime? Does America tend to “ignore” the prostitution issue?