This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was convicted of child solicitation by electronic communication and attempting to cause or permit a child to engage in sexual exploitation. The charges arose from interactions with a law enforcement decoy posing as a fifteen-year-old on a social media platform. The Defendant engaged in explicit conversations and requested sexual images, believing the decoy to be a minor (paras 1, 22-23).
Procedural History
- District Court, Lincoln County: The Defendant was convicted of child solicitation by electronic communication device and attempting to cause or permit a child to engage in sexual exploitation (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court improperly excluded evidence about the age of consent, provided confusing jury instructions, and that the jury erred by not finding entrapment. The Defendant also claimed insufficient evidence for the convictions and contested the requirement to register as a sex offender for life (para 1).
- Appellee: The State argued that the district court's decisions were correct, the jury instructions were proper, and there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. The State maintained that the sex offender registration requirement was lawful.
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court improperly excluded evidence regarding the age of consent.
- Whether the jury instructions were confusing or incorrect.
- Whether the jury erred in not finding entrapment.
- Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.
- Whether the requirement for the Defendant to register as a sex offender for life was lawful.
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed, and the Defendant's convictions and the requirement to register as a sex offender for life were affirmed (para 26).
Reasons
Per Henderson J. (Yohem and Wray JJ. concurring):
The court found no abuse of discretion in excluding evidence about the age of consent, as it was irrelevant to the charges (paras 2-4). The jury instructions were deemed proper and not confusing, as they accurately reflected the law and did not mislead the jury regarding entrapment (paras 5-10). The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury's rejection of the entrapment defense, as the Defendant willingly engaged in the conduct after being informed of the decoy's age (paras 11-18). The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, as the Defendant knowingly solicited a minor and attempted to cause sexual exploitation (paras 19-23). The requirement to register as a sex offender for life was upheld, as the Defendant failed to present a valid constitutional challenge (paras 24-25).