what advice to give to an 18 year old

[SkyHog]

Apparently, by the letter of the law, his age doesn't matter. He could have been 16 and he still would have been busted. That's unfortunate. I think he may be hosed.

 

[livitup]

A. Child solicitation by electronic communication device consists of a person knowingly and intentionally soliciting a child under sixteen years of age, by means of an electronic communication device, to engage in sexual intercourse, sexual contact or in a sexual or obscene performance, or to engage in any other sexual conduct when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child.

He's not hozed as long as the cop was pretending to be 15, and he's 18. Unless I can't read...

 

[N747JB]

The only good news is, he isn't 4 years older than the "victim" I don't know if that is any help. Surely the DA isn't trying to catch 18 year olds having sex with 15 year olds, a good lawyer and a clean cut, freshly shaven 18 year old, looking 16 or 17 would help. Lord help him if he looks like my 19 year old, everyone thinks he's 25!
We've had a couple cases in Georgia where 18 year olds were dating 15-16 year olds and ended up in prison!!

OK - here's the exact law he's being charged under:
NMSA 30-37-3.2:
Child solicitation by electronic communication device

A. Child solicitation by electronic communication device consists of a person knowingly and intentionally soliciting a child under sixteen years of age, by means of an electronic communication device, to engage in sexual intercourse, sexual contact or in a sexual or obscene performance, or to engage in any other sexual conduct when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child.

B. Whoever commits child solicitation by electronic communication device is guilty of a:

(1) fourth degree felony if the child is at least thirteen but under sixteen years of age; or
(2) third degree felony if the child is under thirteen years of age.

C. Whoever commits child solicitation by electronic communication device and also appears for, attends or is present at a meeting that the person arranged pursuant to the solicitation is guilty of a:
(1) third degree felony if the child is at least thirteen but under sixteen years of age; or
(2) second degree felony if the child is under thirteen years of age.

D. In a prosecution for child solicitation by electronic communication device, it is not a defense that the intended victim of the defendant was a peace officer posing as a child under sixteen years of age.

E. For purposes of determining jurisdiction, child solicitation by electronic communication device is committed in this state if an electronic communication device transmission either originates or is received in this state.

F. As used in this section, "electronic communication device" means a computer, video recorder, digital camera, fax machine, telephone, cellular telephone, pager, audio equipment or any other device that can produce an electronically generated image, message or signal.
History: Laws 1998, ch. 64, § 1; 2005, ch. 295, § 1; 2007, ch. 68, § 3.

 

[SkyHog]

He's not hozed as long as the cop was pretending to be 15, and he's 18. Unless I can't read...

Hey now, I missed that!

 

[rottydaddy]

I agree with everything you said but this one piece. Statutory rape is not violent rape - there's no "defending" themselves.

I should elaborate... and I'll admit I sidetracked a bit; this isn't really directly relevant to the OP's scenario.

Let's say she thinks a guy her own age is coming over, and it turns out it's a legal adult, old enough that she's no longer interested... but now he knows she's alone in the house, and won't take no for an answer. He may not use violence at all... "you agreed to this, I'll say you lied to me and nobody will believe you or everyone will think you're a slut", etc etc. Then there's the threat of force... he may even come with a weapon to merely intimidate her. Or maybe he can pass for younger, and doesn't reveal his true age until after the fact (I don't know how the law handles sex between minors, but that's another matter).
Adults use these methods of coercion or deception all the time to take advantage of minors without actually physically forcing them to do anything (just as there are Lolitas out there who will claim to be legal then turn around and cry "rape" if other conditions are not met). But in case "Romeo" seems willing to use force, regardless of his age, all kids should know how to back up their "no" with something a little- or a lot- more persuasive. Even if it's just enough to give them a chance to flee the scene. But self-defense doesn't always means violence, in any case.

 

[EdFred]

OK - here's the exact law he's being charged under:
NMSA 30-37-3.2:
Child solicitation by electronic communication device

A. Child solicitation by electronic communication device consists of a person knowingly and intentionally soliciting a child under sixteen years of age, by means of an electronic communication device, to engage in sexual intercourse, sexual contact or in a sexual or obscene performance, or to engage in any other sexual conduct when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child.

B. Whoever commits child solicitation by electronic communication device is guilty of a:

(1) fourth degree felony if the child is at least thirteen but under sixteen years of age; or
(2) third degree felony if the child is under thirteen years of age.

C. Whoever commits child solicitation by electronic communication device and also appears for, attends or is present at a meeting that the person arranged pursuant to the solicitation is guilty of a:
(1) third degree felony if the child is at least thirteen but under sixteen years of age; or
(2) second degree felony if the child is under thirteen years of age.

D. In a prosecution for child solicitation by electronic communication device, it is not a defense that the intended victim of the defendant was a peace officer posing as a child under sixteen years of age.

E. For purposes of determining jurisdiction, child solicitation by electronic communication device is committed in this state if an electronic communication device transmission either originates or is received in this state.

F. As used in this section, "electronic communication device" means a computer, video recorder, digital camera, fax machine, telephone, cellular telephone, pager, audio equipment or any other device that can produce an electronically generated image, message or signal.
History: Laws 1998, ch. 64, § 1; 2005, ch. 295, § 1; 2007, ch. 68, § 3.

He's 18, and the non-existent minor is 15 right?

Oh, I see a few others caught that as well.

 

[livitup]

Hey now, I missed that!

Yeah, and the cops must have too, unless there's something else going on.

IANAL, but it seems to me even Lionel Hutz could get your friend sprung from jail and the charges dropped with just a quick call to the prosecutor.

"You are aware that my client is 18, the officer was claiming to be 15, and that's only a 3 year age difference, not the 4 year difference that is a required element of the crime my client is charged with..."

Or something like that - this is not legal advice.

 

[SkyHog]

I just called his mother...unfortunately, I was off on the facts. It just got creepier. He's 20, born in 1992.

 

[EdFred]

I just called his mother...unfortunately, I was off on the facts. It just got creepier. He's 20, born in 1992.

As Hawk Harrelson would say, "He gone."

 

[N747JB]

I just called his mother...unfortunately, I was off on the facts. It just got creepier. He's 20, born in 1992.

Back to being "hosed"

 

[livitup]

Back to being "hosed"

Yup, that. And very nearly to the "rightly so" side of the spectrum.

 

[ebykowsky]

I just called his mother...unfortunately, I was off on the facts. It just got creepier. He's 20, born in 1992.

How many REAL 15yo girls are out there actually looking for sex with a 20yo man? I would guess fewer of them than cops posing as such. Sorry, this guy is now a dumb@$$.

 

[Skylane81E]

Even if he weren't 20 he'd be hosed, its "or" 4 years younger not "and" so a 17 year old could commit the offense if the victim was 13

 

[Skylane81E]

How many REAL 15yo girls are out there actually looking for sex with a 20yo man? I would guess fewer of them than cops posing as such. Sorry, this guy is now a dumb@$$.

Yeah, at best he is likely guilty of criminal stupidity

 

[Ted]

How many REAL 15yo girls are out there actually looking for sex with a 20yo man? I would guess fewer of them than cops posing as such. Sorry, this guy is now a dumb@$$.

Based on my experience in HS (granted I graduated 11 years ago), a surprising number of girls there were only interested in dating 20+ guys. One girl I knew at 15 was dating a 25 year old. Then there was another who lied about her age and slept with a 27 year old, and ended up with some disease.

The stupidity does go both ways, unfortunately.

 

[N747JB]

How many REAL 15yo girls are out there actually looking for sex with a 20yo man? I would guess fewer of them than cops posing as such. Sorry, this guy is now a dumb@$$.

I am 49, but I have boys that are 19 and 17, the 19 year old could tell you some stories that would probably make you lock up any females in your family! Since he was 14 or 15 girls have literally thrown themselves at him, girls his age up to grown women.
Unless you are around a lot of teenagers, you might be surprised how many are sexually active at a very young age, I'm not talking about neglected kids in the street, I'm talking about the cheerleader next door.
I am not defending a 20 year old trying to hook up with a 15 year old, but to think 15 year old girls aren't looking for "grown up" college age guys, sadly, is not what I see happening in the real world.

 

[Stevel]

Yup, that. And very nearly to the "rightly so" side of the spectrum.

+1 except he may be all the way to the "rightly so" side. At that age, it depends on the individual. Most have matured enough to understand why sex with children is so wrong, and others may still only understand that it is against the rules, but not fully understand why.

 

[Ted]

I think John's got it right. Sounds like nothing has changed since I was in high school.

 

[Skylane81E]

Valid point, still very very dumb

 

[ebykowsky]

I am 49, but I have boys that are 19 and 17, the 19 year old could tell you some stories that would probably make you lock up any females in your family! Since he was 14 or 15 girls have literally thrown themselves at him, girls his age up to grown women.
Unless you are around a lot of teenagers, you might be surprised how many are sexually active at a very young age, I'm not talking about neglected kids in the street, I'm talking about the cheerleader next door.
I am not defending a 20 year old trying to hook up with a 15 year old, but to think 15 year old girls aren't looking for "grown up" college age guys, sadly, is not what I see happening in the real world.

Yeah, I'm a teen and therefore am around us teens a lot, but have not had a similar experience to your son Yeah though, I do see more than enough of that going around on campus but don't often see young girls going for much older guys like that (I suppose I just need to get out more ) My college is even notoriously geeky and dull and there's way too much of the random hookups, etc every weekend (IMHO) So yeah, I understand the current teen culture, but this dude is still a massive dumb@$$ for both pursuing this and falling for it.

 

[Corpsmaide]

Read the code again. Section A states OR to engage in acts with someone fours years or younger. There is always an or. EVEN IF HE WAS 18 the charge would still stick.

 

[Corpsmaide]

And this was the time he was caught. There could have been many successful meetings he made with minors via the web before.

 

[EdFred]

Read the code again. Section A states OR to engage in acts with someone fours years or younger. There is always an or. EVEN IF HE WAS 18 the charge would still stick.

Moot point now, but I fail to see how it is read that way.

 

[Skylane81E]

Moot point now, but I fail to see how it is read that way.

Do you want $20 and 50 cents

Do you want $20 or 50 cents
minor change, major difference

 

[EdFred]

Do you want $20 and 50 cents

Do you want $20 or 50 cents
minor change, major difference

Except the "or" is not in the same place as you put it.

According to you (and CM), where you are putting the "or" someone even of the age 75 soliciting someone to hook up who is 70 is breaking the law.

Here's the way it reads:

Child solicitation by electronic communication device consists of a person knowingly and intentionally soliciting a child under sixteen years of age, by means of an electronic communication device, to

1) engage in sexual intercourse, (or)
2) sexual contact or in a sexual or obscene performance,
3) or to engage in any other sexual conduct

when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child.

 

[Corpsmaide]

Moot point now, but I fail to see how it is read that way.

Yes sir... I see someone beat me to it. Written law is confusing, it is written by lawyers who speak legalese. In the academy they put in polo terms so we understand it quicker.

 

[Corpsmaide]

Except the "or" is not in the same place as you put it.

According to you (and CM), where you are putting the "or" someone even of the age 75 soliciting someone to hook up who is 70 is breaking the law.

Here's the way it reads:

Child solicitation by electronic communication device consists of a person knowingly and intentionally soliciting a child under sixteen years of age, by means of an electronic communication device, to

1) engage in sexual intercourse, (or)
2) sexual contact or in a sexual or obscene performance,
3) or to engage in any other sexual conduct

when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child.

This is in reference to a CHILD not adults...so 70 and 75 do not apply

 

[livitup]

Do you want $20 and 50 cents

Do you want $20 or 50 cents
minor change, major difference

I see what you are getting at:

A. Child solicitation by electronic communication device consists of a person knowingly and intentionally soliciting a child under sixteen years of age, by means of an electronic communication device, to engage in sexual intercourse, sexual contact or in a sexual or obscene performance, or to engage in any other sexual conduct when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child.

could be read as:

• a person knowingly and intentionally soliciting a child under sixteen years of age, by means of an electronic communication device, to engage in sexual intercourse, sexual contact or in a sexual or obscene performance,
• or to engage in any other sexual conduct when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child.

When read this way, the age difference component only comes into play when the conduct is "other sexual conduct" (not something listed in bullet 1). So, strictly interpreted, a 8 year old kid and a 12 year old kid playing "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours" could be charged, even if there was no electronic communication device used.

I think a much more likely scenario is that the authors of the bill intended for the bill to read like:

A. Child solicitation by electronic communication device consists of a person knowingly and intentionally soliciting a child under sixteen years of age, by means of an electronic communication device, to engage in sexual intercourse, sexual contact, in a sexual or obscene performance, or to engage in any other sexual conduct, when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child.

This would make the age difference thing a component of all the listed actions. I've seen errors like this creep into lots of bills at the state level, usually based on amendments. If spotted and reported to a state representative, they usually get fixed.

 

[Skylane81E]

Except the "or" is not in the same place as you put it.

According to you (and CM), where you are putting the "or" someone even of the age 75 soliciting someone to hook up who is 70 is breaking the law.

Here's the way it reads:

Child solicitation by electronic communication device consists of a person knowingly and intentionally soliciting a child under sixteen years of age, by means of an electronic communication device, to

1) engage in sexual intercourse, (or)
2) sexual contact or in a sexual or obscene performance,
3) or to engage in any other sexual conduct

when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child.

Negative, only applies to a "child under 16"

 

[EdFred]

This is in reference to a CHILD not adults...so 70 and 75 do not apply

Depending where you put the "or" it could be read that way. And I was referencing the 20 and 50 vs the 20 or 50.

Negative, only applies to a "child under 16"

Not if you move the qualifier - which you did in your example.

 

[livitup]

Except the "or" is not in the same place as you put it.

According to you (and CM), where you are putting the "or" someone even of the age 75 soliciting someone to hook up who is 70 is breaking the law.

Here's the way it reads:

Child solicitation by electronic communication device consists of a person knowingly and intentionally soliciting a child under sixteen years of age, by means of an electronic communication device, to

1) engage in sexual intercourse, (or)
2) sexual contact or in a sexual or obscene performance,
3) or to engage in any other sexual conduct

when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child.

I agree, that's what they wanted, but getting there requires an one less "or" and a missing comma, at least in my semi-professional opinion...

 

[Corpsmaide]

I see what you are getting at:


could be read as:

• a person knowingly and intentionally soliciting a child under sixteen years of age, by means of an electronic communication device, to engage in sexual intercourse, sexual contact or in a sexual or obscene performance,
• or to engage in any other sexual conduct when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child.

When read this way, the age difference component only comes into play when the conduct is "other sexual conduct" (not something listed in bullet 1). So, strictly interpreted, a 8 year old kid and a 12 year old kid playing "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours" could be charged, even if there was no electronic communication device used.

I think a much more likely scenario is that the authors of the bill intended for the bill to read like:

A. Child solicitation by electronic communication device consists of a person knowingly and intentionally soliciting a child under sixteen years of age, by means of an electronic communication device, to engage in sexual intercourse, sexual contact, in a sexual or obscene performance, or to engage in any other sexual conduct, when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child.

This would make the age difference thing a component of all the listed actions. I've seen errors like this creep into lots of bills at the state level, usually based on amendments. If spotted and reported to a state representative, they usually get fixed.

Yes...the reason why they are not on the books as bullets is for booking/charging purposes. We must put the charge/code section, and sub sections when charging someone.

 

[livitup]

Yes...the reason why they are not on the books as bullets is for booking/charging purposes. We must put the charge/code section, and sub sections when charging someone.

I know.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

If he was 18, i'd probably have some advice to give him... but at 20, i don't know what to say. Guy screwed up pretty badly. If he gets out of it somehow, i'd tell him to think long and hard about how his actions nearly ruined his life.

But this confuses me:

OK - here's the exact law he's being charged under:
NMSA 30-37-3.2:
Child solicitation by electronic communication device

A. Child solicitation by electronic communication device consists of a person knowingly and intentionally soliciting a child under sixteen years of age, by means of an electronic communication device, to engage in sexual intercourse, sexual contact or in a sexual or obscene performance, or to engage in any other sexual conduct when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child.

...

D. In a prosecution for child solicitation by electronic communication device, it is not a defense that the intended victim of the defendant was a peace officer posing as a child under sixteen years of age.

Not at all trying to defend the guy here, but I don't get the wording of this. I see what they are trying to do in section D, but if it's a peace officer and not a child, he hasn't actually violated section A. He's being charged with a crime that the prosecutor knows for a fact he didn't commit.
Add attempted... to the charge, and sure he's guilty.

Simply replacing "soliciting a child under sixteen years of age" with "soliciting a child under sixteen years of age or a peace officer posing as such" would address that concern. But as written, section D essentially says: the fact that the evidence clearly proves you didn't commit the crime as defined in section A is not a valid defense.
Is that even legal??? If so, how?

 

[Palmpilot]

Read the code again. Section A states OR to engage in acts with someone fours years or younger. There is always an or. EVEN IF HE WAS 18 the charge would still stick.

Here's the paragraph again, with the "or" clause highlighted:

A. Child solicitation by electronic communication device consists of a person knowingly and intentionally soliciting a child under sixteen years of age, by means of an electronic communication device, to engage in sexual intercourse, sexual contact or in a sexual or obscene performance, or to engage in any other sexual conduct when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child.

It's not clear to me whether the phrase "when the perpetrator is at least four years older than the child" applies to the whole paragraph, or only to the portion after the "or." Maybe it depends on the legal definition of "soliciting."

I also still have a question in my mind about the fact that there was no actual fifteen year old involved. I don't see any prohibition of soliciting an adult who is pretending to be fifteen. [Oops - I just saw the discussion of section D - that clarifies the intent of the law sufficiently for me.]

I guess one could argue that he intended to solicit a fifteen year old, but it doesn't just say "intentionally," it says "knowingly and intentionally." How can you "know" something that is not true?

 

[Skylane81E]

I share the gripe David, it's dancing to close to the edge of entrapment for me. It doesn't make someone more or less scum to have been fooled by the cops, but it does change what they actually did.

 

[Palmpilot]

Not at all trying to defend the guy here, but I don't get the wording of this. I see what they are trying to do in section D, but if it's a peace officer and not a child, he hasn't actually violated section A. He's being charged with a crime that the prosecutor knows for a fact he didn't commit.
Add attempted... to the charge, and sure he's guilty.

Simply replacing "soliciting a child under sixteen years of age" with "soliciting a child under sixteen years of age or a peace officer posing as such" would address that concern. But as written, section D essentially says: the fact that the evidence clearly proves you didn't commit the crime as defined in section A is not a valid defense.
Is that even legal??? If so, how?

It seems better the way you wrote it, but section D makes the intent of the law clear enough for me.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

It seems better the way you wrote it, but section D makes the intent of the law clear enough for me.

Fair enough, I agree the intent is clear, though i strongly dislike the way they worded it.

I'm not well versed on legal matters, so I'm not sure whether one is supposed to follow what the law actually says or my opinion on what the law intends. In this case, I believe one approach leads to guilty, the other not guilty.

 

[Palmpilot]

I suppose it depends on whether the judge is a "strict constructionist" or not.

 

[Ateaist]

Not at all trying to defend the guy here, but I don't get the wording of this. I see what they are trying to do in section D, but if it's a peace officer and not a child, he hasn't actually violated section A. He's being charged with a crime that the prosecutor knows for a fact he didn't commit.

Actually no. The crime requires intent + an act. The intent element is met because he clearly intended to solicit sex from a 15 year old. Likewise, the act element is met because he in fact made a solicitation using a communications device. It doesn't matter if there was a 15 year old, or the motorcycle cop from the Village People, on the other end, the elements of the statute are met.

I think Subsection D is just added to show the intent of the legislature in drafting this statute, to save the courts from having this issue litigated over and over again.