United States of America v. Joan Robinson, also known as Jay

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1223
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Joan Robinson, also known as Jay
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: April 30, 2026
Filed: May 6, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Joan Robinson appeals the judgment entered by the district court1 after a jury
found her guilty of transporting a minor in interstate commerce for prostitution. See
18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
1 The Honorable Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
On appeal, Robinson argues the evidence was insufficient to prove that she
transported the minor victim with the intent that the individual engage in
prostitution. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict
and drawing all reasonable inferences in the government’s favor, this court finds no
basis for reversal. See United States v. Hoffman, 626 F.3d 993, 995 (8th Cir. 2010)
(explaining the de novo standard of review). A rational trier of fact could have found
beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one reason Robinson transported the minor
was for the minor to engage in prostitution, given Robinson’s close personal
relationship with the victim, her knowledge of the victim’s prostitution before
transporting the victim, her message to the victim before the trip about making
money, the evidence on her phone revealing that a prostitution website had been
searched, the messages during the trip relating to commercial sex acts, and her
receipt of repeated payments in the victim’s name while on the trip. See United
States v. Duffin, 844 F.3d 786, 790 (8th Cir. 2016) (explaining that the illicit behavior
must be one of the purposes motivating the interstate transportation, but it need not
be the dominant purpose); Hoffman, 626 F.3d at 995 (stating the evidence is
sufficient if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt); United States v. Cole, 262 F.3d 704, 709 (8th Cir.
2001) (reiterating that intent may be inferred from all the circumstances).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --