P. v. Middleton
Annotate this Case
A jury convicted Defendant of human trafficking of a minor for a commercial sex act, misdemeanor false imprisonment, and forcible rape in concert of a minor 14 years or older as an aider and abettor. On appeal, Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions and the judgment should be reversed on the basis of instructional error.
The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that Section 236.1, subdivision (c), prohibits the human trafficking of a minor and attempted human trafficking of a minor. Defendant was convicted under the attempt prong. Relying on People v. Moses (2020) 10 Cal.5th 893 (Moses I), she contends the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that the People had to prove specific intent as to age and by instructing the jury that mistake of fact as to age is not a defense to the attempt charge. The court held there was no instructional error: A defendant violates section 236.1, subdivision (c), when the defendant attempts, but fails, to traffic an actual minor, even if the defendant lacks specific intent regarding the victim’s age. Mistake of fact as to age is not a defense to attempted human trafficking under section 236.1, subdivision (c) when the victim is a minor. Also, substantial evidence supports her conviction for trafficking.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.