1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___

____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: D ec em

be r 3, 201 4 4 N O. 32, 929 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 RICHARD SCHAUB LI N, 9 D ef

en da nt- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF CU RR Y C OUN TY 11 Te dd y L . Ha rt le y, D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 Gary K. King, Attorney

Ge neral 13 Paula E . G anz, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Tr ace L . R abern 17 San ta Fe, NM 18 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 SU TIN, Judge. 3 { 1} A j ur

y f ound D ef en da nt R ic ha rd S ch au

bli n gu ilty

of one c ount

of c hil d 4 sol ic itatio n by

e le ctro nic co m

m uni ca tio n de vic e (and ap pe ar ing fo r a m ee tin g w ith ) 5 a ch ild be tw ee n thi rt ee n an d six te en y ears of a ge , c ontrary

to N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 6 30-37-3.2(A) , ( C)(1) (2007). T he distric t co urt entered a j udgm ent and sentence 7 co nsi ste nt w iththe j ur

y ’ s ve rd ic t, fro m whi ch D ef en da nt n owappe al s. O n a ppe al , 8 D ef en dant p ri m ar ily

a rg ue s th at

he w as unl aw fu lly

e ntr ap pe d by

apol ic e sti ng 9 ope ratio n in w hic h an adul t polic e of fi ce r pose d as a fif

te en -y ear- old fe m al e ch ild on 10 ana dul ts- onl y

se ct ionof

the w eb sit e “ Cr ai gsl ist [. ] ” H e al so r ai se s a jury ins tr uc tio n 11 iss ue a nd a

c ha lle nge to the c onst it ut io na lity of S ec tio n 30 -3 7- 3. 2 onF ir st 12 A m en dm en t gr ound s. 13 { 2} W e hold that D efendant w as not unl aw fully entrapped, e ither as a m atter of law 14 or a s a m atte r of fa ct

. W e do not co nsi de r D ef en da nt’ s unpr es er

ve d j ur y ins tr uc tio n 15 ar gum en t, a nd b ec au se S ec tio n 30 -3 7- 3. 2 w as he ld c onst itu tio na l onF ir st 16 A m en dm en t gr ound s ina n O pin ioniss ue d by thi s C ourt in 2 011, w e do n ot 1 7 r e c o n s i d e r

t h e i s s u e h e r e . We a f

f i rm.17 Q uoted m aterial f rom Cra igslis t posti ngs, emai l s , and text m essages are 1 18 ve rb at im

thr ough out

thi s O pin ion , w iththe e xc ep tio n of pun ct ua tio n a s no te d. 19 “ Asl ” is an acro nym for“ ag e, se x, l oc at io n.” 2 2 1 BACKGRO UND 2 { 3} Ph il Caro land, ana ge nt o f the Curr y Co unty S he ri ff ’ s O ff ic e, pos te d an a d on 3 the Craigslist website under the “ wom en seeking m en” section that wa s titled “Ne w 4 in t ow n/l ooki ng—

w 4m ( Cl ovi s) ” an d that re ad , “ Y oung /c ute if a ge doe sn’ t m atte r hit 5 m e up! !! ” D ef

en da nt r ep lie d to the pos t st at ing , “ H ey ne wbie , w er e in the sa m e boa t.

1 6 W an nahang o ut?” A ge nt C ar oland re spon de d a s “ My rn a G onz al es ” (M yrn a) a nd 7 sta te d, “ sur e as l ? des cr ipt ion ? im 15 f m ov ed he re f ro m f lor ida , ve ry

sho rt a nd 2 8 ski nny [. ] ” D ef

en da nt responde d by

statin g, “ I se e. Wha t e xa ct le y a re y ou l ooki ng 9 fo r? Notsu re t ha t we co ul d b e an ym or e th an tex t b ud di es be cau se of you r ag e.” 10 Whe n M yrn a re spon de d, “ tha ts c ool

. . . i l ike te xti n new ppl

. . . thats h oww e did it 11 in florida[,] ” and afte r a brief e- m ail discussi on in which Myrna re vealed that she had 12 rece ntly

m oved to New Mexic o with her par ents who we re in the A ir Forc e, 13 D ef en da nt a ske d f

or M y rn a’ s ph one num

be r so tha t the y

c oul d e xc ha nge te xt 14 m es sa ge s. 15 { 4} De fendant initiated a text-m essage conversation with Myrna later that 16 af te rn oon. I n the int er im , “ My rn a” ha d gone to lun chw ithhe r “ m om , ” an d D ef en da nt3

1 as ke d M yrn a, “ w ha t doe s m om thi nk o f y our

se ar chf or am an ?” W

he n M yrn a sa id 2 tha t he r m om

didn’ t kn ow“ or

she w oul d ki ll m e[ , ] ” Defen da nt r es pond ed “ O ooh! 3 Y our be ing aba d li ttl e gir l? D id y ou g et m an y [r es pons es ] ?” A s th ei r co nve rs at ion 4 co nti nue d, My

rn a an d D ef

en da nt b othm ad e re pe at ed r ef er en ce s to he r ag e, w ith 5 My rn a al so m ak ing re fe re nc es to he r pa re nts , an d w ith D ef en da nt as kin g M yrn a w hy 6 she w as not

in sc hool (w ith My

rn a re spon din g th at

he r m om ha d gi ve n he r “ a da y

or 7 to to chill ”). 8 { 5} W ith in the ir

f ir st d ay of te xti ng, D ef

en da nt b eg aninc lud ing se xua l i nnue ndo 9 i n h i s c o mm

u n i c a t i o n wi t h M yr

n a , a s k i n g h e r “Do e s yo u r ‘f u n ’ i n v o l v e t h i n g s 1 5 yr 10 old gir ls s houl dn’ t be doi ng y et ? ”; te lli ng h er , “ I can he ar y our dir ty li ttl e m ind 11 working!”; and, a sking , a lbeit not in response to “ thou ghts” sh ared by My rna, “ What 12 are y ou goi ng t o do w itha ll of tho se dir

ty li ttl e tho ught s?” T he ne xt m or nin g, 1 3 D ef en d a n ti n i t i a t e dac o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h M yrn aa s k i n g , “ S l e e p i n b a dg i r l ?” a nd 14 w heth er she ha d “ [s ] w ee t dr eam s or did dir ty tho ught s ke ep y ou u

p?” My rn a 1 5 re s p o n d ed t h at s h e h ad s l ep t“ we l l [. ]” 16 { 6} Inthe ir

se co nd da y of co m

m uni ca tio n, in re spon se to D ef en da nt’ s r eque st f

or 17 a phot ogr ap h fr om My rn a, A ge nt Caro land s en t tw o “ ag e re gr es se d” pho tog ra phs of 18 ana dul t de puty

int en de d to appe ar

to be pho tos of

af if te en -y ear- old

gir l. H av ing 19 re ce ive d the phot ogr ap hs, D ef en da nt se nt M yrn a a te xt s ta tin g, “ W O W ! I ts a goo d4

1 thi nk y o u r n o t 2 1

. Y o u l o o k o l d e r i n [ o n e o f t h e p h o t o s , ] ” t o w h i ch Myrn a 2 re spon de d, “ I tr ie d to o & thank u [. ] ” S hortly the re af te r, D ef en da nt t old

My rn a, “ Y ou 3 ar e ve ry

pr etty ! N ow i fe el lik e a dirty old m an !” D ef en da nt the n a ske d f

or My rn a 4 to call him

on the telephon e. In response to this re quest, an adult, fe m ale deputy had 5 a “ shor t c onve rs at ion ” (a s c ha ra ct er iz ed by D ef en da nt) w ithD ef

en da nt o ve r the 6 ph on e. Defen da nt fo ll owe d th e p ho ne co nv ers at io n wi th a te xt to Myrn a st at in g, “ Ok 7 thi s is goi ng t o so und ba d bu t y ou ha ve THE se xie st v oic e!

. . . Make s m e w an t t o 8 throw m

y m orals out the window!” 9 { 7} O n th e thi rd

day of the ir int er ac tio n, D ef

en da nt i nit ia te d ate xt c om m uni ca tio n 10 w ithMy

rn a, in w hic h D ef

en da nt ini tiate d a dis cu ssi on c ont ai nin g se xua l i nnue ndo, 11 an d D ef

en da nt e ve ntu al ly

se nt s ex ua lly

e xpl ic it com

m uni ca tio ns d et ai lin g w ha t he 12 “ would” do to/with Myrna. O n the fourth day of their interaction, D efendant initiated 13 a text com

m unication with My

rna w ith the gre eting, “ Goodm orning Lover!” and later 14 tha t day

he intro duc ed

the top ic of

m ee tin g Myrn a in per son. D ef en da nt and M yrn a 15 arranged to m eet at My rna’ s hous e w hen her parents w ere ou t

. De fe ndant was 1 6 a rr e s t e dw h e n h e a rr i v e da tt h e a d d r e s s t h a tM yrn ah a dg i v e n h i m. 17 { 8} Pr ior

to tr ia l, D ef

en da nt m ove d fo r dis m iss al of the ch ar ge ag ai nst him on the 18 ba sis of

il le ga l e ntr ap m en t. A s w ill be dis cu sse d in gr ea te r de ta il in the body of thi s 1 9 O pin i o n , t h e d i s tr i c tc o u rtd e n i e dt h e m o t i o n , i n p a rt , b u ta l l o w e dD e f e n d a n tto5

1 pr es en t hi s e ntr ap m en t de fe nse to the j ur y . T he j ur y re j ec te d D ef

en da nt’ s e ntr ap m en t 2 de fe nse , an d as note d ear lie r, fo und him gui lty of one co unt of ch ild sol ic itatio n by 3 el ect ro ni c co m

m un ic at io n d ev ic e. 4 { 9} O n a

ppe al , D ef

en da nt r e- as se rt s hi s e ntr ap m en t argu m en ts, c la im ing that the 5 district court erre d in deny ing hi s m o t i o n t o dism iss on the ground that he wa s 6 subj ec tiv el y

e ntr ap pe d a s am atte r of law , and a lso a rg uin g th at th e St at e fa ile d to 7 pr ovi de suf

fi ci en t ev ide nc e to s uppo rt the j ur y ’ s r ej ec tio n of

his e ntr ap m en t de fe nse 8 as a mat t ero f l aw . We d i s ag re e w i t h b o t h o f D ef en d an t ’s ar g u me n t s . De fe n d an t ’s 9 ad dit ion al arg um ents, c onc er nin g j ury in st ru ct io ns an d t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y of S ect ion 10 30- 37- 3. 2 do not

w ar rant this Co urt’ s c onsi de ratio n. 11 DISC US SION 12 Ov er vie w of

En tr ap m en t La w 13 { 10} N ewMe xic o re co gni ze s tw o m aj or ap pr oa ch es to the de fe nse of e ntr ap m en t, 14 th e su bjec ti ve ap pr oa ch an d t he ob jecti ve ap pr oa ch

. Se e Sta te v . V all ej os , 199 7- 15 NMS C-040, ¶¶ 5-6, 12 3 N. M. 739, 945 P. 2d 95 7 (noting that Ne w Me xico recognizes 16 both subjective and ob j ective entrapm ent ); 2 W ay ne R. La Fave et al., Crim inal 17 Pr oc ed

ur e §§ 5

. 2, 5. 2( a) ( 3d e d. 200 7) ( sta tin g th at the sub j ec tiv e an d ob

j ec tiv e 18 approaches are the two m aj or approaches to the defense of entra pm ent). Both are a t 19 issue here.6

1 { 11} “ Su

bj ec tiv e en tr ap m en t oc curs w he n th e cr im ina l de sig n or igi na te s w iththe 2 [p oli ce ] , an d the y im

plant in the m ind

of a n in noc en t pe rs on the dis posi tio n to c om m it 3 the a lle ge d of

fe nse a nd i nduc e its c om m iss ionin or de r” to ge ne rate apr ose cu tio n. 4 V all ej os , 1997-NMS C-0 4 0, ¶ 5 (internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itted). I n 5 the sub j ec tiv e ap pr oa ch , the f

oc us i s on th e de fe ndant’ s in te nt o r pr ed isp osi tio n to 6 co mm it th e cr im e, w iththe pr ose cu tio n be ar ing the bur de n of pr ovi ng t o th e fa ct

7 f i nd er t ha t t he de fen da nt was p red is po se d t o c omm it th e cri m e. Se e id. ; State v. 8 Fiec hter , 1976-NMS C-006, ¶¶ 1 0 n.6, 11, 89 N. M. 74, 547 P.2d 557 (recognizing th at 9 it is the pr ose cu tio n’ s burd ento de m onstrate , as a m atte r of f ac t t o be r es olv ed

by the 10 j ur y , “ tha t the de fe ndant w as a lr ea dy w ill ing to co m

m it the c rim e”). W he re the 11 pr ose cu tio n pr ove s th at the de fe ndant w as pr ed isp ose d to c om m it the c ri m e an d th e 12 pol ic e m er el y

pr ovi de d an op portunity f or him to do s o, the sub

j ec tiv e en tr ap m en t 13 de fen se m

us t fa il

. V

all ej os , 19 97 -NMSC -0 40 , ¶ 5. 14 { 12} Under r are circum stances, the issue of subje ctive entrapm ent m ay be resolved 15 as a m atte r of law , in w hic h ins tanc e, the fa ct -f ind er w oul d not co nside r the 16 de fen da nt ’s pre di sp os it io n. See F iechter , 1976 -N MSC- 006, ¶ 11 (“ [I] t is rare indeed 17 w he n [ subj ec tiv e] e ntr ap m en t m ay c or re ct ly be he ld t o e xis t a s am atte r of law . A nd 18 if e ntr ap m en t i n law is not pr es en t, the n th e j ur y m ust de ci de w he the r the de fe ndant 19 w as pr ed isp ose d to co m m it the c ri m e. ”) ; se e, e . g. , Sherman v . U nited Sta tes , 356 U. S.7

1 369, 373 (195 8) (holding , pursuant to the subjective approach, that the defendant was 2 en tra pp ed as am atte r of law ); Sorr ells v. United States , 2 8 7 U

. S

. 4 3 5 , 4 4 1 , 448 -4 9 3 (1 932) ( sa m e) ; see LaFav e, supra , § 5.2(a) (rec ogni zing that the subjective approach 4 is also called the She rm an - Sorr el ls doc tr ine be ca use it w as a dopt ed

by am aj or ity

of 5 the Suprem e Court in those cases). 6 { 13} “ Th e o bj e c t i ve app r oa c h f oc us e s up ont he i nd

uc e m e nt s us e d by

t he ” p ol ice. 7 LaFav e, supra , § 5. 2( b)

. Ade fe ndan t m ay suc ce ed in his obj ec tiv e en tr ap m en t 8 defense in one of two way s, a “ factual inquiry ” or a “ norm ative inqui ry .” V all ej os , 9 1997 -N MSC- 040, ¶¶ 11, 14-15. In a f actual inquiry , a

j ury m ust cons ider w hether “ as 10 a m atte r of

f ac t .

. . pol ic e co nduc t c re at ed asub stantial ris k th at [ a hy pothe tic al ] 11 ordinary

person not p redisposed to com m it a particular

c rim e w ould have been caused 12 to comm it that crim e[. ] ” Id

. ¶ ¶ 11- 12. A de fe ndant’ s pr ed isp osi tio n “play s no r ole 13 w ha tso ev er ” in the f

ac tua l i nqui ry ; and the pr ose cu tio n be ar s th e bur de n of pr ovi ng 14 th atth e p ol ic e d id no t “ ex ceed [] the bo un ds of p erm is si bl e la w enf or cem en t co nd uc t.” 15 Id

. ¶ 13 ; UJ I 14 -5 16 1 NM RA. 16 { 14} Inanor

m at ive inquir

y , the dis trict court m ay

r ule “ as am atte r of

law[ an d 1 7 p o l i cy] th at p o l i ce co n du ct ex ce ed ed th e s t an d ar d s o f p ro p eri n v es t i g at i o n [. ]” 18 V all ej os , 199 7- N MS C- 040, ¶ ¶ 11, 15- 16. I n c on du ct ing a nor m at ive inquir

y , the 19 d i strict court considers “ whether police tactics offend our notion s of fundam ental8

1 fa ir ne ss, or a re so o utr ag eo us” that the y of fe nd pri nc ipl es of due pr oc es s, or vio la te 2 “ principles of fair and honorable adm inistration of j ustice[.] ” Id

. ¶¶ 16-17 (internal 3 quot ation m arks and citation om itted). A defendant’ s predispos ition m ay , but does 4 n o t n eces sa ril y , fact orin to a co ur t’s n or m at iv e in qu iry. Se e id. ¶ 1 5 ( sta tin g, f or 5 ex am ple , that w he re pol ic e pe rs ua de a re co ve ri ng dr ug ad dic t t o us e ill eg al dr

ugs, the 6 defendant’ s predispos ition towar d drug abus e m ay fac tor into th e norm ative inqui ry 7 because, in that circum stance, the police conduct m ay exceed the standards of proper 8 inv es tig at ion , notw ith stand in g the no tio n th at a n “ or din ar

y pe rs on” w oul d no t be 9 susceptib le to such persuasion ). 10 The D istrict C ourt’ s Entr apm ent Ru ling 11 { 15} T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d w he the r D ef en da nt w as e n tr a

p p e d p ur suant t o any 12 of the f or eg oin g st an da rd s. T hr oughhis ple ad ings and arg um en t, D ef en da nt 1 3 pers u ad ed t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt th at t h e i s s u e o f s ub je ct i v e e n t rap m en tan dfa ct u al -i n quiry 14 obj ec tiv e en tr ap m en t sh oul d be pr es en te d to a nd re solve d by the j ur y . I n r eg ar d to 15 norm ative-inquiry

objec tive entrapm ent, the dis trict court found that the po lice, 16 posi ng a s af

em al e, My

rn a, c re at ed a pr of

ile onl ine thr oughw hic h D ef en da nt 17 co nta ct ed My

rn a w ho told D ef

en da nt tha t sh e w as f

if te eny ears old

. D ef

en da nt and 18 Myrna “ engaged in em ail, te xt[,] and telephon e co n v er sations [, ] ” som e of w hich 19 co mm uni ca tio ns “ w er e se xua l i n na tur e. ” “ U lti m at el y , . . . D ef en da nt arr ive d a t a9

1 residence to m eet [My rna] i n p er s o n [, ] ” and he w as arr ested. T he district court 2 co nc lud ed

that “ the pol ic e co nduc t f oll ow ed a we ll[ -] es ta

bli she d m an ne r of 3 inv es tig at ionint o thes e ty pe s of cr im es ” and

“ ne ith er the m ethods [ n] or

pur pose s of 4 police condu ct offend

. . . notio ns of fundam ental fairness. ” A ccordingly , the district 5 court ruled that, pursuant to a norm ative inqu iry , objec tive entrapm ent did not occur. 6 De fend ant’s En trapm ent Ar gum ent 7 { 16} Defen da nt d oe s no t c ha lle nge the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng r eg ar din g ob

j ec tiv e 8 entrapm ent, nor do es h e challeng e th e su fficiency of t he State’ s evidence to prove that 9 the pol ic e “ did

not e xc ee d th e boun ds o f pe rm is sib le lawe nf or ce m en t c ondu ct ” 10 req ui red to su pp or t th e jury’ s reject io n of hi s ob jecti ve en tra pm en t de fen se . See U JI 11 14- 5161

. I nst ea d, D ef en da nt’ s entr ap m en t arg um en t f oc use s onthe “ pr ed isp osi tio n” 12 el em en t of

sub j ec tiv e en tr ap m en t. In tha t re ga rd , D ef en da nt arg ue s th at , pur suant t o 13 She rm an a nd Sorr el ls , he wa s entrapped as a m atter of law and that the State f ailed 14 to p re se nt s uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce that he w as pr ed is po se d to se xua lly c onve rs e w ithor 15 m ee t a

f if te en -y ear- old

. 16 S t a n d a r d o f

R e v i e w 17 { 17} T o th e ext en t tha t De fe ndant cha lle nge s the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m oti on 18 to d ism iss on the ba sis of sub j ec tiv e en tr ap m en t pur suant t o She rm an an d Sorr el ls as 19 aniss ue dis tin ct fr om w he the r suf fi ci en t ev ide nc e supp orte d th e j ur y ’ s r ej ec tio n of

his10

1 subjective entra

pm ent defense, we consider the singl e is sue on appeal t o be whether 2 t h e ju ry ’s ver di ctwas s up po rte d b y su ffi ci en t ev id en ce. Se e Sta te v . M ye rs , 200 9- 3 N MS C- 016, ¶ 14, 146 N

. M. 128, 207 P. 3d 1105 (“ [W ] he n a ca se pr oc ee ds to trial, 4 er ro r re sul tin g f

ro m a n im pr ope rl y de nie d pr et ria l m ot ionis not r ev er sib le f

or the 5 re sul t be co m es m er ge d in the subs eque nt tr ia l. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n 6 o m i tt ed ) )

. I n r e v i e w i n g D e f e n d a n t ’s a r g u me n tr e g a r d i n g t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e St at e’s 7 pr ed isp osi tio n e vid en ce , w e vie wthe e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or able to the 8 gu il ty v erd ic t to de te rm in e whe th er it was su pp or te d by sub st an ti al ev id en ce. Sta te 9 v. Ni ch ols , 20 14 -NMCA- 04 0, ¶ 1 5, 3 21 P.3d 93 7, cert. gran ted , 2 0 1 4

- NMCERT10 003, 324 P

. 3d 3 76. In so doing , w e do not re -w ei gh the f ac ts, sub sti tut e our

j udgm en t 11 fo r th atof t he jury, or s e a r c h f orin fere nc es su pp or ti ng a co nt rary verd ic t. State v. 12 Sla de , 20 14 -NMCA- 088, ¶ 13, 331 P

. 3d 9 30, cert. gran ted , 201 4- N MC E RT -0 08, 334 13 P. 3d 4 25. 14 Sh er m an and So rre lls Ar e N ot Sup portive of D efen dant’ s Argum ent 15 { 18} D ef

en da nt re lie s on the sta te m en t i n She rm an tha t “ [e ] ntr ap m en t oc curs onl y 16 w he n th e cr im ina l c ondu ct w as ‘ the pr oduc t of

the c re at ive a ct ivi ty ’ of 17 law [] en fo rc em en t off

ic ia ls” fo r the pr opos iti on tha t, but f or the c re at ive a ct ivi ty

of the 18 pol ic e in this c as e, he w oul d no t have sol ic ite d a sexua l re la tio nshi p wi th a chi ld. 356 19 U

. S. a t 37 2 ( quot ing Sorr el ls , 287 U

. S. a t 45 1)

. The pa rt ic ular cr ea tiv e pol ic e ac tiv ity11

1 by w hic h Defen da nt cl ai m s to ha ve be enind uc ed w as the of

fi ce r’ s us e of

a n a dul t2 o n l y Cr ai g s l i s tb o ar dt o p o s tMyrn a’s ad , t h e o ff i ce r’s ac to f d i r ec t i n g Myrn a’s 3 int er ac tio n w ithD ef

en da nt “ tow ar d th e se xua l, ” an d th e of fi ce r’ s a ct of usi ng an a dul t 4 w om an ’ s ph oto gr ap h and v oic e to accompany the “ My rn a” pe rs ona . D ef

en da nt 5 ar gue s th at

the f or eg oin g po lic e co nduc t “ w as de sig ned to plant a se ed ” in 6 Defen da nt’ s m ind

that w oul d “ ge rm ina te int o aplan” that, onc e carr ie d ou t, w oul d 7 crea te an op po rtu ni ty to p ro se cu te a cri m e. C f

. S h er m an , 356 U

. S. a t 37 2 8 (rec ogni zing that entrapm ent m ay be indicated where “ the crim inal design originates 9 w ith the [p oli ce ] , an d the y im plant in the m ind

of a n in noc en t pe rs on the dis posi tio n 10 to comm it the alleged offense and induce its comm issio n in order that they m ay 11 prosecute” (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted)). 12 { 19} Inboth She rm an and S o rr e lls , the U nited States Suprem e Court re cognized that 13 po li ce m ay

de te ctcri m in al s b y

m ean s o f a ru se . Se e She rm an , 3 56 U. S. a t 37 2 14 (rec ogni zing that “ [c] rim inal activ i t y i s s u ch that stealth and strategy are necessary 15 w ea pons in the a rs en al of

the pol ic e of

fi ce r” ); Sorr el ls , 287 U

. S. a t 44 1 ( “ A rt if ic e an d 16 str at ag em

m ay be e m plo y ed to ca tc h th ose e nga ge d inc ri m ina l e nte rp ri se s. ”)

. I t i s 17 onl y w he re , a ct ing un de r th e co ve r of suc h r use , the pol ic e (o r gove rn m en t a ge nt) 18 pe rs ua de s an othe rw ise lawabid ing c iti ze n to e ngag e in cri m ina l a ct ivi ty thr ough 19 re pe at ed an d cons ist en t appe al s, tha t the lin e is cr oss ed be tw ee n sett ing a“ tr ap f or the16 D ef en da nt d oe s no t a

ppe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat the “ w el l- 3 17 es ta bl is he d” po li ce i nv es ti ga ti on tec hn iq ue of p os ti ng “ Myrna’s” ad t o th e ad ult s- onl y 18 se ct ion of Cr ai gsl ist w as w ith in the boun ds of funda m en ta l fa ir ne ss , th ereby 19 ef fe ct ive ly co nc ed ing the co rr ec tne ss of the dis tr ic t co urt’ s ru li ng . See Ru le 12- 20 213(A)(4) NMR

A ( stating that a finding that the appellant does not attac k in his brief 21 in ch ie f “ sh al l b e d eem edco nc lu si ve ”). 12 1 unwary crim inal” and im

perm issib le entrapm ent of t he “ unwary innocent.” She rm an , 2 35 6 U.S. at 37 2- 74 (ho ld in g t ha t t he de fen da nt was u nl awfu ll y en tra pp edb y a 3 gove rn m en t a ge nt who s ough t t o pe rs ua de the d efendant t o ob ta in n ar co tic s by 4 m ak ing r ep ea te d r eque sts , f ir st t o ov er co m e the de fe ndant’ s re fu sa l, the n hi s 5 ev as ive ne ss, a nd the n hi s he sit an cy be fo re f ina lly a ch ie vin g c ap itu la tio n) ; see 6 So rr el ls , 287 U

. S. a t 44 1 ( hol din g th at the gov er

nm en t a ge nt l ur ed

the de fe ndant, 7 oth er w ise not pr ed isp ose d, to en ga ge in cr im ina l ac tiv ity by “ re pe at ed a nd p er sis te nt 8 sol ic itatio n in whi ch he suc ce ed ed by takin g a dvanta ge of

the [ de fe ndant’ s] 9 se nti m en t” ); see also United States v. V asco , 564 F

. 3d 1 2, 18 ( 1st Ci r. 200 9) 10 (rec ogni zing that go vernm ent overreach m ay be dem onstrated by

“ such cond uct as 11 intim idation , thre ats, dogged insi stence, excessive pressure[, ] or exploitation of a 12 no nc riminal m ot iv e”). 13 { 20} D ef

enda nt’ s r el ianc e on She rm an a nd Sorr el ls is unpe rs ua siv e unde r the 14 ci rc um stanc es of

thi s c as e. N otw ith standi ng the f ac t tha t M yrn a’ s a d wa s poste d in 15 the adults-on ly

section of Craigslist , Myrna inform ed De fendant im m ediately , in her 313

1 re spon se to D ef

en da nt’ s ini tia l re spon se to he r ad , tha t she w as f if te eny ears old

. T he 2 re co rd of D ef en da nt’ s e nsui ng e -m ai l and t ex t e xc ha nge w ithMy rn a is voi d of a ny 3 ind ic at ionthat po lic e atte m pte d t o p e rs ua de D ef

en da nt, thr oughe ve n asin gle r eque st, 4 to contin ue com

m unicating with My

rna. Further, De fendant’ s contentio n that it was 5 My rn a, in stea d of

D ef en da nt, w ho i nse rt ed

se xua lity int o th ei r co m

m uni ca tio ns i s 6 co ntr ad ic te d by

the r ec or d, w hic h r ef

le ct s th at t he su bj ec t of

se xua lity

w as f ir st 7 broached by

De fendant in the following text exchang e. 8 D ef

en da nt: Wha t y ou b e doi ng r igh t no wif y ou c oul d? 9 My

rn a: N ot s ur e som ethin g f un & not ha ve to w or

ry bou t. 10 Defen da nt : T he re y ou g o w iththat f un thin g a ga in. D oe s y our ‘ fun’ 11 inv olv e thi ngs 15 y r old gir ls s houl dn’ t be doi ng y et ? 12 My

rn a: H m m m m m I ’ m shy lol 13 D ef

en da nt: Wha t do es that m ean? 14

. . . . 15 Defen da nt : I’ve g ot a pr et ty goo d i de a jus t b y wher e y ou po st ed [.] 16 My

rn a: H eh eh e is tha t ba d? 17 D ef

en da nt: I f

ound y ou d idn ’ t i ? G ue ss w er e both ba d! 18 My

rn a: H eh eh e gue ss s o . . . . N oww at ? 19 De fendant: I can hear y our dirty little m ind working!14

1 Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . B rand , 467 F. 3d 17 9, 195 (2d Cir. 2006 ) (holding th at the j ury 2 co uld ha ve int er

pr et ed the de fe ndant’ s “ use of se xua l i nnue ndo [i n hi s on lin e 3 com m unication s with an undercover agent p o s i n g as a thirteen- y ear- old child ] as 4 ‘ o b l i qu e r e qu e s t s ’ o f e n t i c e m e n t t o e n g a g e i n s e x u a l a c t i v i t y ” )

. A l s o c ont ra ry to 5 D ef en da nt’ s r ep re se nta tio n, the fo re goi ng exc ha nge oc curr ed be fo re pol ic e se nt any 6 phot ogr ap hs t o D ef

en da nt an d be fo re My

rn a phon ed

D ef en da nt. L at er

te xt m es sa ge s, 7 inc lud ing tho se tha t we re ex ch an ge d af te r D ef en da nt re ce ive d the phot ogr ap hs and 8 te le phon e ca ll, c ont ai ne d in cr ea sin gly gr ap hic se xua l lan gua ge tha t wa s c onsi ste ntl y 9 introdu ced by

De fendant, but none reflec t any repeate d or persistent a ttem pt by police 10 to persuade Def

endant to comm

unicate with My

rna, sexually

or otherwise. 11 { 21} In sum , f

rom the foregoing, the j ury

could reasonably h av e co ncluded th at 12 D ef en da nt e nga ge d w ithMy

rn a w ill ing ly

a nd w ith out ha vin g be en pe rs ua de d to d o 13 so b y a ny m an ne r of pe rs ist en t or

ins ist en t c aj oli ng b y

the pol ic e. A cc or din gly , the 14 ci rc um stanc es he re do not be ar r ea sona ble c om pa ri son to the c ir cu m stanc es of 15 She rm an a nd Sorr el ls , nor do w e re ad She rm an or Sorr el ls to s uppo rt r ev er sa l of

the 16 j ury ’ s verdict in this case. 17 Evidenc e of D efen dant’ s Pr edisposition Was Suff icient 18 { 22} De fendant’ s overarching argum ent regarding his predisp osi t ion is th at there 19 was “ no e vid en ce to supp ort the c onc lus ionthat, abse nt the ins er tio n of the f ak e15

1 pe rs on a in to hi s l ife , [ he ] wou ld ev er [h av e] ex ch an ge d se xu al te xt s wit h a juv en il e.” 2 H e ar gue s th at

ha d he be enpr es en te d w it h an “ or dinar y opp ortun ity ” to r es pond

to 3 ana d th at

w as “ cl earl y . . . fo r a fi ft ee n- y ear- old ” the re w as no e vid en ce that he w oul d 4 have done so. And he contends that he was, in fact, respondin g to the “ im proper lure” 5 or “ spe ci al ind

uc em en t” by the pol ic e tha t c om m en ce d w iththe a dul ts- onl y se ct ion 6 of the Cr ai gsl ist post ing an d w as fo llo w ed by phot os and t el ep hone c om m uni ca tio n 7 with an adult wom an, a ll of which led h im to be “ susp icious th at [My rna] wa s an 8 adul t ro le -p la y in g a m in or .” 9 { 23} Where the police offe r an “ ordinary oppo rtunity ” to com

m it a crim e, that is, an 10 oppo rt

uni ty that i s f re e of pol ic e ind

uc em en t an d ove rr ea ch an d the de fe ndant ava ils 11 hi m se lf of th e op po rtu ni ty, an en tra pm en t de fen se wil l no t su ccee d. See Jacobson v. 12 United States , 503 U. S. 540, 550 (199 2) (“ Ha d the agents in this case sim ply offer ed 13 pe tit ion er

the opp ortun ity

to or de r ch ild

por nog rap hythr oughthe m ai ls, a nd 14 pe tit ion er

. . . ha d prom

ptl y av ai le d him se lf of thi s cr im ina l opportun ity , it is unli ke ly 15 tha t hi s e ntr ap m en t de fe nse w oul d ha ve w ar rante d a j ur

y ins tr uc tio n. ”) ; United States 16 v. G en dron , 18 F. 3d 95 5, 961-62 ( 1 st Cir. 1994 ) (stating that an “ ordinary 17 oppo rtunity ” is one that is not charac terized by police indu cem ent and overreac hing ). 18 E xa m ple s of im pr ope r ind

uc em en t or ove rr ea ch ing inc lud e: ( 1) the use of 19 “ int im ida tio n and thr ea ts a ga ins t a de fe ndant’ s f

am ily , ” (2 ) ca lli ng e ve ry day a nd16

1 thr ea te nin g and a ct ing be lli ge re nt t ow ar d th e de fe ndant, ( 3) e nga gin g “ in for ce fu l 2 sol ic itatio n and d ogge d in sis te nc e unt il [the de fe ndant] c ap itu la te d, ” (4 ) play in g upo n 3 the defendant’ s sym

pathy or sentim ent, ( 5) u s i n g “ repeate d sugg estions which 4 suc ce ed ed

onl y w he n [ the ] de fe ndant h ad los t hi s j ob and n eede d m one y f or his 5 fam il y ’ s f

ood an d r en t, ” an d ( 6) a n a ge nt p re se nti ng h er se lf a s “ sui ci da l and i n 6 desperate need of m oney [. ] ” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d)

. 7 { 24} In thi s ca se , the pol ic e pr es en te d an oppo rt uni ty , via My

rn a’ s C ra igs lis t po sti ng 8 an d he r im

m ed ia te r ep re se nta tio n of he rs el f as a fi ft ee n- y ear- old ch ild , fo r D ef en da nt 9 to co m m it a cri m e. Thi s di d no t co ns ti tu te an im pr op er o ve rrea ch by the po li ce. See 10 G en dron , 18 F

. 3d a t 96 1 ( “ It is pr ope r (i

. e. , not

a n ‘ ind uc em en t’ ) fo r the gov er

nm en t 11 to use a ‘ sting ,’ at least w here it am ount s to provi ding a defe ndant with an 12 ‘ oppo rt

uni ty ’ to co m

m it a cr im e. ”) ; se e als o Sta te v . Sor to -Enam orad o , 544 F ed

. 13 Appx. 298, 300 (5th Cir. 2013 ) (holding th at the defendan t wa s not entit led to an 14 entrapm ent defense w here he “push ed for a ‘ hookup’ ” wi t h an undercover police 15 of fi ce r w ho r es pond ed

to the de fe ndant’ s Cr ai gsl ist a d and t old

him that sh e w as onl y 1 6 fi f t e e n y e a r s o l d )

. D e f

e n d a n ta v a i l e dh i m s e l f

o f t h e o p p o rtu n i t y

p r e s e n t e db y

t he 17 police when he continu ed to com m unicate with My

rna even af

ter having learned her 18 ag e an d w he n he intro duc ed se xua lity int o th e co mm

unicatio ns. T he pol ic e onl y 19 co nti nue d th e ru se of pr es en tin g M yrn a as af if te eny ear old

that w as se ek ing a17

1 relationship

. The r ecord d o es n o t re flect that the police used any im proper 2 ov e rr e a c h i n g o r

i n du c e m e n ti n o r d e r

t o p e r s u a d e D e f

e n d a n tt o e n g a g e i n t he se 3 act iv it ie s. 4 { 25} Furthe r, a lth oughD ef en da nt arg ue s th at , ba se d on the pol ic e’ s use of a n a dul t 5 to p o rtray

My rna in photo s and over the telephon e, he believed that Myrna w as an 6 ad ult play ing the r ole of

a ch il d, th e j ur

y w as not pe rs ua de d by

thi s r ep re se nta tio n, 7 a n d we wil l n ot sec on d g ue ss it s d et erm in at io n. See Sorto- E nam orad o , 544 Fe d. 8 Ap p x . at 3 0 0 (h o l d i n g t h at i t wa s i rr el ev an t t o t h e qu es t i o n o f th e d e f e n d a n t ’s 9 pr ed isp osi tio n th at

apho tog ra

ph p ur porte dly of a fi ft ee n- y ear- old

c hil d “ co uld

be 10 tho ught

to be a n ol de r gir l” be ca use the pho to w as a cco m pa ni ed bya n a ge 11 disclos ure); se e als o Sla de , 201 4- N MC A -0 88, ¶ 13 ( sta tin g th at

w e w ill not

sub sti tut e 12 our j udgm en t f

or that of the j ur y ). N or ar e w e pe rs ua de d th at D ef en da nt’ s te sti m ony 1 3 in th a t r e g a r d w a s “ u n c o n t r a d i c t e d

. ” T o t h e c o n t r a ry , v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n the 14 light m ost favorable to the State, the rec ord refle cts that Def endant believed that 15 Myrna w as a fifteen-y ear- old child, even after he sawher photo and h eard her voice. 16 Fo r ex am

ple , ha vin g se enthe pho to, D ef en da nt s en t an e -m ai l t o M yrna st at in g, i n 17 pa rt : 18 So, a s y ou kn ow, I answer ed the [Cr aigslist ] ad. Much to m y surprise, 1 9 yo ur e p l y a n dt e l l me yo u r 1 5 ! M y f

i r s tr e a c t i o n w a s t o s l a m my 20 co m

put er shu t and thr ow it ou t the w ind owli ke som eo ne f ro m 20/ 20 21 w as f

ilm ing m y r ea ct ionto y our

a ge . O bvi ousl y

I didn’ t do tha t be ca

use18

1 he re we ar e n ow, 8 0 s om et hi n g t e x t s a n d a ph on e cal l l at er. Now, 2 ton igh t I m

lay ing he re in be d w iththe li ttl e an ge l onone sho uld er and 3 t h e l i t t l e d e v i l o n t h e o t h e r . T h e f u n n y t h i n g i s , t h e l i t t l e d e v i l is thi s 4 V E RYpr etty , ini se nt loo kin g gi rl

. . . . S he ke ep s te lli ng m e tha t the se 5 thou ghts Im

having are ok and thats what she wants but is too shy to say 6 it. So n o wI m

i n t h i s p i c k l e a n dkn o ww h a tI s h o u l dd o b u tw oul d 7 RE AL LY , R EA LL Y, RE AL LYlike to do what I should nt!!!!! 8 L ater on th e sam e da y that D ef en da nt s en t the f

or eg oin g e -m ai l, he ini tiate d and 9 carr ie d out a se xua lly ex pli ci t te xt co nve rs at ion w ith My rn a, but onl y a ft er inquir ing 10 w he the r she ha d e ve r ex pe ri en ce d se x, be ca use he “ [d ] idn t w an t t o of fe nd [ he r] w ith 11 [his] dirty

thoug hts.” Fr om

the foregoing, the j ury could re asonablyhave concluded 12 tha t D ef

en da nt b el ie ve d th at

My rn a w as a ct

ua lly af if te en -y ear- old

c hil d, the re by 13 reject in g h is cla im

to th e co nt rary. See S tate v. Dom ingu ez , 201 4- N MC A -0 64, ¶ 28, 14 327 P. 3d 1 092 (n oti ng tha t “ [c ] ontrar y e vid en ce sup portin g a cquit ta l do es not pr ovi de 15 a ba si s fo r reve rs al be ca use the j ur

y is fr ee to re

j ec t the de fe ndant’ s ve rs ionof the 16 fact s” (al te rat io n, in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ), cert. denied , 201 4- 17 NMCERT-0 05 , 32 6 P .3d 11 1. 18 { 26} In sum , D ef

en da nt’ s w ill ing ne ss t o e nga ge in se xua lly e xpl ic it co nve rs at ion s 19 w ithMy

rn a, w hic h w as not the pr oduc t of pol ic e ove rr ea chor

im pr ope r ind

uc em en t, 20 w as suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce of his pr ed isp osi tio n to co m m it the c ri m e of

c hil d so lic itatio n 21 by e le ctro nic de vic e to s uppo rt the j ur y ’ s r ej ec ti on of his sub

j ec tiv e en tr ap m en t 22 de fen se . Defen da nt ’s arg um en t p ro vi de s n o b as is forrev ers al

.19

1 De fend ant’s R em aining Argum ents 2 { 27} D ef

en da nt arg ue s th at

a n in str uc tio n gi ve n to the j ur y in thi s c as e pr ovi din g 3 tha t: “ [i ] t i s no t a

de fen se to the c ri m e of [ c] hil d [ s] oli ci ta tio n by [ e] le ctro nic 4 [c] omm

unication [d] evice that the intended victim of

. . . [D ] efendant wa s a p eace 5 of fi ce r posi ng a s ac hil d un de r six te en [, ] ” w as im pr op er fo r a num

be r of r ea sons . 6 De fendant did not objec t to the instructio n in the district c ourt, nor, regarding t hat 7 in str uc tio n or the statut or

y langua ge f

ro m w hic h it

de ri ve d, did

he m ak e the 8 ar gum en ts b el owthat he nowm ak es on a ppe al

. Be ca

use D ef en da nt’ s arg um en ts i n 9 th is reg ardwere n ot pre se rv edin th e di st ric t cou rt, we de cl in e to co ns id er the m . See 10 Ru le 12- 213( A )( 4) ( re qui ri ng the appe llant t o incl ude a sta te m en t expl ai nin g how the 1 1 iss ue w a s p r e s e rv e db e l o w , i n c l u d i n g c i t a t i o n s t o t h e r e c o r dd e m o n s t r a tin g 12 pr es er va tio n) ; Sta te v. L uc er o , 199 9- N MC A -1 02, ¶ 45, 127 N

. M. 672 , 986 P

. 2d 4 68 13 (d ec lin ing to ad dres s an ar gum en t w he re the appe llant f ai le d to c om

ply w iththe 14 pr es erv at io n re qu ire m en t o f Ru le 12 -2 13 ). 15 { 28} Fi na lly , w e do n ot c onsi de r D ef en da nt’ s arg um en t tha t S ec tio n 30 -3 7- 3. 2 is 16 unc onst itu tio na l be ca use it c ri m ina liz es spe ec h th at is pr ote ct ed

und er th e Fi rs t 17 A m en dm en t t o t he U nit ed S ta te s C onst itu tio n. I n c ontrave nti on o f Ru le 12- 18 213( A )( 4) , D ef

en da nt f ai ls to d em onstrate w he the r an d, if so, howhe pr es er

ve d hi s 19 co nstitu tional argum ent in the dist rict court. More im portantly , this issue was20

1 re sol ve d in Sta te v . Ebe rt , a case tha t D ef en da nt h as f

ai le d to r ec ogni ze in his 2 br ie fin g, an d we wi ll no t re -co ns id er i t. See 2011 -N MCA -098, ¶¶ 1, 7-14, 150 N. M. 3 576, 263 P

. 3d 9 18 (r ej ec tin g a cha lle nge to Se ct ion30- 37- 3. 2 onthe gr ound s of F ir st 4 A m en dm en t over

br ea dth , a m ong oth er

c onst itu tio na l arg um en ts) ; se e als o Ru le 12- 5 213(A)(4) (requiring an appellant, in his brief in chief, to cite applicable Ne w Me xico 6 decisions ). 7 CON CLU SION 8 { 29} W e af

firm the district court’ s judgm ent and sentence. 9 { 30} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 11 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e 12 WE CO NCUR:

13

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 14 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e

15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 16 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e