A withdrawal does not end a trafficking prosecution

Facts and context

A minor testified that the accused recruited her for sexual exploitation. During trial, she signed an affidavit withdrawing the complaint but later confirmed her original testimony and acknowledged receiving money for signing the affidavit.

The trial court convicted the accused of qualified trafficking, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue

Could the affidavit of desistance require dismissal despite the evidence supporting the prosecution?

Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The anti-trafficking law rejects dismissal based on a victim’s or guardian’s affidavit of desistance. Such withdrawals require particular caution where exploitation, pressure, or vulnerability may be involved.

The criminal action belongs to the State. A complainant’s withdrawal during trial does not itself determine whether prosecution continues or whether the evidence proves the offense.

Practice implications

Parao Law practice guidance

For affected individuals and healthcare teams

• Do not promise that signing a withdrawal will end a trafficking case. Refer questions about its effect to counsel and the prosecutor.
• If a patient discloses pressure or payment connected with withdrawal, document the patient’s account accurately through the appropriate clinical and safeguarding process. Distinguish what was reported from what was directly observed.
• Preserve relevant records securely and coordinate lawful disclosure through the appropriate channels. Avoid unnecessary repetition of a child’s account or public identification of the patient.

For lawyers

• Examine the circumstances of execution, any payment or pressure, and the relationship between the affidavit and the witness’s testimony.
• Assess the evidence proving each element independently. The weakness of a desistance affidavit does not remove the prosecution’s burden of proof.
• Plan witness support and protection with the responsible authorities; avoid treating a signed document as a substitute for evaluating vulnerability and voluntariness.

Limits of the ruling

The healthcare guidance above is Parao Law’s practical application, not an additional holding of this criminal case. The statutory rule addressed trafficking; effects of withdrawal in other proceedings require their own analysis.