United States v. Hanapel, 2024 WL 3750014 (8th Cir. 2024)
If you’ve read Xiphos for a long time, you’ll know that I’m a serious biker. I’m on my seventh Harley-Davidson touring bike. I ride at least 20,000 miles each year and I attend the Sturgis Rally faithfully. I refer to it as the General Conference of the Church of the Holy Harley (I enjoy poking my pastor in the ribs). I haven’t missed in nearly two decades.
James Dean Hanapel is just two decades old, so there’s no way that he’s attended many of the annual Sturgis rallies. Traveling to Sturgis from Florida, he sought company when he arrived. He used SKOUT (an app for dating and hooking up), claiming to be 21-year-old “Max Taylor.” He saw a profile for “Journey,” who purported to be an 18-year-old woman. Of course, Journey was an adult male cop. Journey’s profile pictures were photos of an adult woman associated with law enforcement. Hanapel asked whether Journey wanted to “hang out.” Journey said “maybe” and provided a telephone number.
Hanapel asked whether Journey “wanted some company.” Journey replied affirmatively, but she wanted to tell Hanapel that she was “not 18” and was “just here trying to have fun while my parents are at the rally.” When Hanapel asked, “How old are you ??” Journey replied, “14 but turn 15 in a couple months.” Hanapel quickly responded, “Yoo I can’t talk to you,” suggesting they could “be friends but nothing more.” Journey wrote back: “ok. sorry. i understand. guys my age are pretty lame and you seemed pretty cool. i didn’t mean to upset you sorry. you were just so cute.” Hanapel wrote: “it’s okay you seem cool I just don’t want trouble if you wanna hangout and grab ice cream or catch a movie that’s cool but I’d have to meet your parents. Because if they got the wrong impression I’m going to jail.”
Hanapel and Journey continued to text chat. When Hanapel asked Journey what she’d “done with people before.” Journey answered, “a lot….lol.” Hanapel asked what she meant, and Journey told him to “just use your imagination hehehehe.” Hanapel again asked Journey if she wanted to meet. Journey wrote: “depends on what you have in mind,” because “this is my last night home by myself so i have to be careful on who i choose to hang with so i can make the most of it.” A few minutes later, Hanapel responded: “Honestly you tryna hook up?” Journey replied, “up to you maxie.”
Journey sent a photo purporting to be her dressed in a sports bra and leggings. The agent behind Journey’s profile testified that he sent this photo because he considered it “nonsexual in nature” and the attire was consistent with the August heat. Within a few minutes, Hanapel asked Journey for her location. Hanapel complimented her, saying the photo was “sexy,” and added, “I’m thinking I come over we watch a movie make out and see what happens from there.” Journey asked what he “had in mind” because she “may surprise” him. Hanapel suggested they “could hook up.”
An entrapment defense has two elements: government inducement of the crime, and a lack of predisposition by the suspect to engage in the criminal conduct.
Hanapel again asked Journey what she liked and she replied, “didnt i tell you to use your imagination. im willing to try whatever. you just name it.” Hanapel suggested “sex,” and asked if she “wanted to f–k.” Journey asked, “do you?” Hanapel answered, “Yes I’m down.” Journey asked Hanapel is there was anything he “wanted to try.” He said, “Yeah a–l if you’re down.”
Journey and Hanapel agreed to meet at a middle school. (Seriously—that should have been a red flag!) When he arrived at the school with newly purchased condoms, Hanapel was promptly arrested. The young man admitted he’d traveled to the school to have sex with a minor girl.
Hanapel claimed investigators entrapped him and asked the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal. The court refused. Doubling down, Hanapel tried to convince the jury he was entrapped, but the jury didn’t buy it and found him guilty. Hanapel was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He appealed, again arguing entrapment.
When a defendant claims entrapment, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was not entrapped. An entrapment defense has two elements: government inducement of the crime, and a lack of predisposition by the suspect to engage in the criminal conduct. Courts have consistently acknowledged the lawfulness of using undercover officers, trickery, deception and other methods to provide an opportunity to commit a crime to a person so inclined. However, officers cannot persuade an unwilling person to commit a crime. Simply giving someone a favorable opportunity to break the law is not the same as persuading him to do so.
The appellate court first considered whether Hanapel was induced to commit the crime. “Four factors are relevant: (1) whether the government initiated the contact with the defendant; (2) whether the government introduced the topics of meeting and sex; (3) the effect of the photos sent by the government; and (4) the degree to which the government influenced the behavior of the defendant by portraying the minor as sexually precocious.”
Get the Xiphos law enforcement legal update delivered to your inbox: SUBSCRIBE NOW!
The court held Hanapel was not induced to commit a crime. He was the one to suggest meeting up with Journey (who had already identified herself as a minor), and he was the first to mention they could “hook up” and have sex. Hanapel also claimed the photo purporting to be Journey in a sports bra induced him to propose sex. The court disagreed, noting, “Far more revealing images have been held insufficient to constitute inducement as a matter of law.” The court also noted Journey downplayed her own sexual history: “trust me im not that experienced.”
Hanapel argued he was not “predisposed” to commit a crime because he told Journey they could “be friends but nothing more” once he found out she was a minor. Just four hours after learning this, though, Hanapel bought condoms and showed up at a schoolyard intending to use them. Noting that “initial hesitance to engage in criminal conduct does not establish lack of predisposition as a matter of law,” the court held a reasonable jury could conclude he was predisposed to commit illegal sexual acts with a minor.
The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s judgment that Hanapel was not entrapped. He’ll have 10 years in federal prison to think about it. One hopes he never returns to Sturgis.
