- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
- Date Filed: 05-23-2018
- Case #: A159667
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, C.J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Lagesen, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed his conviction of first-degree sexual corruption of a child. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion of acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued that he did not "solicit" the child as defined in the statute because he passively agreed to sexual favors before knowing the child's age. In response, the State argued that the fact that the initial plan to engage in sexual contact was made before Defendant knew the child’s age did not prevent his later requests to engage in sexual contact from constituting solicitation as defined by the statute. A person has to commit second-degree online sexual corruption and take substantial steps to meet the child to commit first-degree sexual corruption. ORS 163.433. To commit second-degree sexual corruption " (1) a person who is 18 years of age or older (2) for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the person or another person (3) knowingly uses an online communication to solicit a child to engage in sexual contact or sexually explicit conduct and (4) offers or agrees to physically meet with the child." ORS 163.432(1). To solicit means "to invite, request, seduce, lure, entice, persuade, prevail upon, coax, coerce or attempt to do so." ORS 163.431(5). The Court of Appeals held that Defendant passively agreed to sexual favors after knowing the child's age and used online communication to solicit the child when he texted her (the undercover officer) "'[c]an I come over?" and "'I'm good to come over now?'" Affirmed.