Seven years after Mortensen, this Circuit reviewed a district court's instruction that the jury could convict so long as it found that "one of the purposes" of the interstate transportation was an immoral one. Daigle v. United States, 181 F.2d 311, 313-14 (1st Cir. 1950). Notwithstanding Mortensen's language on "the dominant motive," we upheld the instruction.

The dissent's reliance on this general language from Hansen does nothing to diffuse the contemporary, consistent precedent underlying the district court's proper instruction. The dissent next lands on Mortensen v. United States , 322 U.S. 369, 64 S.Ct. 1037, 88 L.Ed. 1331 (1944), Cleveland v. United States , 329 U.S. 14, 67 S.Ct. 13, 91 L.Ed. 12 (1946), Hawkins v. United States , 358 U.S. 74, 79 S.Ct. 136, 3 L.Ed.2d 125 (1958), and Daigle v. United States , 181 F.2d 311 (1st Cir. 1950) in support of its contention that the defendant's intent to illicit sex acts not be "a mere incident but rather an efficient purpose prompting and impelling the defendants to the transportation of the girls." Dissenting Opinion , pp. 1166–67, 1168–69.

“It now appears settled that ... immoral conduct, need not be the sole reason for the transportation; the Act may be violated if [immoral conduct] is a dominant or a compelling and efficient purpose. Despite the contrary implication suggested by the word ‘dominant,’ it need not be the most important of defendant's reasons when multiple purposes are present.”United States v. Snow, 507 F.2d 22, 24 (7th Cir.1974) (footnotes omitted); accord United States v. Lebowitz, 676 F.3d 1000, 1014–15 (11th Cir.2012) ; United States v. Miller, 148 F.3d 207, 212 (2d Cir.1998) ; United States v. Tyler, 424 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1970) ; United States v. Bennett, 364 F.2d 77, 78–79 & n. 4 (4th Cir.1966) ; Nunnally v. United States, 291 F.2d 205, 208 (5th Cir.1961) ; Bush v. United States, 267 F.2d 483, 485 (9th Cir.1959) ; Daigle v. United States, 181 F.2d 311, 314 (1st Cir.1950) ; Mellor v. United States, 160 F.2d 757, 764 (8th Cir.1947). Thus, resuming sexual contact with the victim need not be Schneider's only or most important purpose for a jury to convict him of violating § 2423(b).

United States v. Bennett, 364 F.2d 77, 78 (4th Cir. 1966). See also, e.g., Daigle v. United States, 181 F.2d 311, 315 (1st Cir. 1950) (affirming conviction because district court was "warranted in finding that at least one of the purposes of the interstate transportation was to engage in conduct outlawed by the Act"); Long v. United States, 160 F.2d 706, 710 (10th Cir. 1947) (affirming conviction because jury was "warranted in finding that at least one of the purposes of the interstate transportation was to engage in conduct outlawed by the Act"). Other courts have used a "dominant purpose" standard, but have regarded "dominant" as synonymous with "compelling" or "motivating," and they have never held — as Defendants urge here — that interstate travel can have only one dominant purpose.

Herrera presented no occasion for the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico to consider or determine, let alone analyze in detail, in what circumstances, if any, a bank may stop payment on its cashier's check. See Daigle v. United States, 181 F.2d 311, 314 (1st Cir. 1950) (dicta not "considered," absent "detailed analysis" of issue to which dicta speak); In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chicago, 701 F.2d 1189, 1196 (7th Cir.) (dicta not "considered," where rationale is not articulated and unanimity of authority for dicta has eroded), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 866, 104 S.Ct. 204, 78 L.Ed.2d 178 (1983); Manalis Finance Co. v. United States, 611 F.2d 1270, 1273 (9th Cir. 1980) (dicta not "considered," when "not intended to be a definitive resolution" of issue). It is unclear in any event that the Herrera dictum would work a result favorable to Banco Santander. Courts applying a "consideration test" in circumstances similar to the present have gone both ways on the issue.

A mere incidental intent on the part of the transporter to engage in immoral practices during or at the conclusion of the journey is not sufficient to constitute a violation of the statute if the reason or reasons motivating the transportation are unrelated to immoral practices. See Nunnally v. United States, 291 F.2d 205, 208 (5 Cir. 1961); Bush v. United States, 267 F.2d 483, 485 (9 Cir. 1959); Masse v. United States, 210 F.2d 418, 421 (5 Cir.), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 962, 74 S.Ct. 711, 98 L.Ed. 1105 (1954); Daigle v. United States, 181 F.2d 311 (1 Cir. 1950); Mellor v. United States, 160 F.2d 757, 764 (8 Cir.), cert. denied, 331 U.S. 848, 67 S.Ct. 1735, 91 L.Ed. 1858 (1947); Long v. United States, 160 F.2d 706, 709 (10 Cir. 1947); Simon v. United States, 145 F.2d 345, 347 (4 Cir. 1944); Van Pelt v. United States, 240 F. 346, 349 (4 Cir. 1917). Some confusion as to the precise nature of the statutory "intent and purpose" has emanated from the supreme Court's dictum in Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369, 64 S.Ct. 1037, 88 L.Ed. 1331 (1944), that "[a]n intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by section 2 * * * must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement."

The White Slave Traffic Act does not require that the interstate transportation need be solely for immoral purposes, if such purpose constitutes one of the reasons for the transportation. Dunn v. United States, 10 Cir., 190 F.2d 496; Daigle v. United States, 1 Cir., 181 F.2d 311; Mellor v. United States, 8 Cir., 160 F.2d 757." (Emphasis added) 210 F.2d at 421.

This purpose "must be found to exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey and must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement". Mortensen v. United States, supra, p. 374 of 322 U.S. p. 1040 of 64 S.Ct.; Hansen v. Haff, 1934, 291 U.S. 559, 563, 54 S.Ct. 494, 78 L.Ed. 968. It must be an "efficient purpose", albeit one of several, as distinguished from an incidental one. Mellor v. United States, 8 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 757, 764, cert. denied 331 U.S. 848, 67 S.Ct. 1734, 91 L.Ed. 1858; Daigle v. United States, 1 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 311, 314; Dunn v. United States, 10 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 496, 497-498. But Mann Act intent may be inferred from all the circumstances.

Kassin v. United States, 5 Cir., 87 F.2d 183; McTyre v. United States, 5 Cir., 213 F.2d 65, 66; Vick v. United States, 5 Cir., 216 F.2d 228 at page 232. Daigle v. United States, 1 Cir., 181 F.2d 311. Cf. Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369, 64 S.Ct. 1037, 88 L.Ed. 1331.

Before arriving there defendant drove onto a side road and at his urging and insistence both Cannon and Nelson had sexual relations with her. In Daigle v. United States, 1 Cir., 181 F.2d 311, 313, the court stated: "The evidence of prior moral derelictions with the girl involved, coupled with the evidence of their dereliction at the end of the trip, adequately supports the conclusion that from the beginning at least one of its purposes was illicit intercourse." In our view, the fact that the two men who accompanied defendant and the girl had sexual relations with her during the trip, coupled with proof as to defendant's long standing illicit relations with her, constituted the basis for a reasonable inference that defendant entertained the proscribed intent or purpose from the inception of the journey.