I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - CT - 0 0 1 5 1 - S CT JU S T IN DA V ID S H A F F ER a/k/ a J U S T IN DAVI D SC HAFFER
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 01/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : J UDGE KAT HY KI NG J AC KS ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: GREE NE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: PRO SE J AN E E. TUC KER AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY: J OHN R. HENRY D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y : A N T H O N Y L A W R E N C E , III NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D. T HE J UDGMENT O F T H E G R E E N E C O U N T Y C IR C U IT CO UR T I S RE I NS T AT E D AND A F F I RMED - 10/ 27/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BAN C
. DICKINSON, PRES IDING JUSTICE, F OR THE COURT: ¶1. Justin David Shaffer was convicted of ch il d-exploit ation for solicit ing sex from a twentynin e-y ear -ol d f

em alewh o h e th ought w as t hir tee n. Heargue d to the C ourt of Appe als that heco uld not be guilty of child-exploi tation bec ause no child ha d been involved i n the sting. The Courtof Appeals agree d, but re ve rse d and reman de d f

or S ha ff er t o b e sente nc ed

fo r attem

pte d c hildexplo itatio n –

a crim e f or whic h h e was neith er indict ed no r tried . B eca

us e th e ac tual attem

pt t oSh aff er v . S tat e , _

__ So . 3 d _

__ , 2 01 0 WL 3 55 43 54 (Mi ss. Ct . App . S ep t. 1 4, 20 10 ). 1 Mis s. Co deAnn. § 9 7-5 -33 (6) (Rev . 2 00 6). 2 Black’sLa w D iction ar

y15 20 (9t

h e d. 20 09 ). 3 2 explo it a ch ild vio lat es t hech ild -explo itatio n s tat

ute , wereve rsethe C ourt of App eal s an d re ins tat e an d a ff irm Sh af fe r’s co nv iction

an d s enten ce. BA CKGROUND FA CT S AND PROC EE DI NG S ¶2. Tw enty- nin e-y ear -ol d De anna Do oli ttl e att em pte d to cat ch sexua l pre dator s on theint ern et byp re te n dingto b e th ir

te e n -y e ar- o ld

“ C h lo e . ” S h e d e v e lop e d atw o -mo nth

inte rn e t relatio ns hip with Shaffer, finally agreei ng to meet with him at a church in Byram, Mississippi , to have sex. When Shaffer arrived at the church, he was arrest ed and later indicted and convicted for exploitation of a child. ¶3. Because no actual ch il d wa s invo lv edi n th e st in g, the Court of Appeals reve rsed and
reman de d f

or S ha ff er t o b e se nte nc ed

fo r attem pte d c hil d explo itatio n. Sh af fer p eti tio ne d thi s C ourt 1 fo r a writ of cer tio rari, whic h w e granted . W e re ve rsetheCo urt of Appeals and affirm

Sh af fe r’s
co nv iction

an d s enten ce. ANAL YS IS I. ¶4. Mis si ss ip pi ’s c hi ld -e xp lo it at io n st atut e make s it ill egal for anyone to use “any means including a computer” to “knowingl y . . . solicit. . . a child to meet with the person for purpose of
en ga ging in

sexua llyexpli cit

co nd uc t.” So lic itatio n is su ff ici ent to vio lat e th e st atute. 2 ¶5. “Solicit ” is defined as “the act or an instance of requesting or seeking t o obtain something.” 3 An d whe the r th e things oli cit ed a ctu ally e xis ts i s ir

rel ev ant. F or ins tan ce, a so lic itatio n f or mon ey1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 4 2 2 ( b ) (20 00 ). 4Un ited S

tat es v . F ar ner , 2 51 F. 3d

51 0, 51 1 (5 th C ir. 20 01 ). 5 3 from a p enny les s pa

up er is no ne the les s a so lic itatio n. So , Mis sis sippi’ s ch ild -explo itation statute is violat ed when o ne att empt s to e xploit a chi ld. Stated another way, Missi ssippi has no c rime of attempted child-e xploitat ion because an attempt to exploit achild is, i tself, child- exploitat ion. ¶6. Shaffer clearly was “seeking to obtain” sex from a child when he entered a Yahoo! c hat room and began an online relati onship with Chloe
. These se xually-expl icit chats led to aphone
co nv ers ati on

in whic h S ha ff

er c onvin ced

Ch loeto meet

him at a churc h in

Byram , M iss iss ipp i. Sh af fe r w illno t no w b e h eard to claim that h is mist ak enun de rst an ding o f C hlo e’s ag e miti gates his att em pt t o h av e se x w itha mino r. ¶7
. Th e act of so lic it ati o n d o e s n o t re qu ire th at th e thing s o li c it e d e v e n e x is ts . F o r ins tan ce, when an owner “sol icits” bids from potent ial contract ors, no bids e xist at the ti me of the solicitation – and bids may never exist. And the s ubmission of a deficient bid by a contract or does not change thefa ct t hat a b id wa s so lic ite d. Bo th Sh af fer’s and th e owne r’s so lic itatio ns we re c om ple te whe n the solic itor made itknown what they were looking for. Shaffer completed the crime of exploitati on of a mino r whe n h e so lic ite d s exf rom a mino r – whe the r or

no t th e p ers on

hewa s talkingwi th w as act ua llya mino r. ¶8. Th is is thef

irs t tim e weh av e addre sse d thi s iss ue , but our de cis ion is in co nc ert wi th o the r jurisdi ctions. For i nstance, in Un ited St ate s v. F ar ner , th e d ef

en dant, Farner, w as c onvic ted un de r federal law for attempting to e nt ice and persuade a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity,

4 5Id
. 6 Id. at 511, 513. 7 Id. at 513. 8 State v. Coonrod, 65 2 N .W .2 d 7 15 (Minn . C t. A pp . 2 00 2). 9 Id. at 723. 10 Id
. 11 Id
. 12 4 ev enthoughheinc orrectly b eli ev ed hewa s m akingarran ge m ents t o m eet a f ourte en -ye ar- old

girl named “Cindy” to engage in sexual a ctivity. 6 ¶9. Th e Fifth Circui t hel d thatFarnerhad violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), even though “Cindy” was an adult FBI agent
. The Court state d, “[d] efendant Farner’s scheme, if fully carri ed out as he 7 ‘desire d’ or ‘planned,’was not to enga ge in sexual r elations with an adult FBI officer. By his own stipulation , th e p ers on

who m he des ire d to e nti ce w as a 14 -ye ar- old

girl. Theon ly reas on

hefaile d was because the true facts were notas he belie ved them to be.” 8 ¶10. The Minne sota Court of Appeals st ated in State v. Coonrod that it would not read into the 9 law a requirement that an actual child be used in a sti ng operations as part of a poli ce investi gation. 10 Th e Minn eso ta c ourt c om pared suchs tin g op eratio ns to und erc ov er drug and pro sti tution

de co ys , 11 statin g th at i t w ould b e a real“co ns ter natio n”to us e act

ua l p ros tit

ute s an d d

rugus ers . W e agree .

12 CO NC LU SI ON ¶1 1
. W e f

in d th at Sh a f

f e r co mmitte d th e c rim e o f e xp lo it ati o n o f a c h il d wh e n h e s o li c it e d sex from “C hlo e, ” so werev ers e th e C ourt o f A pp eal s’ j udgm ent, and

w e reins tat e an d af

firm thetri al
co urt ’s c onvic tio n and

senten ce.5

¶12. THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF AP PE AL S I S REVER SE D. TH E JUDGMENT OF THE GRE ENE CO UNT Y CIRCU IT COURT IS REINSTAT ED AND AF FI RM ED . C ONVI CT IONOFE XP LO IT AT IONOFAC HIL D AN D SENTE NCE O F TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS IN THE CU STODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI D EPART MENT OF CORRECT IONS, WITHOUT THE BEN EFIT OF PAROLE , PAY COSTS OF COURT AND A F INE OF $50,000, WITH CONDITIONS, AF FIRMED. WALLER, C.J., CARL SON, P. J., RANDOLPH, LAMAR AND PIERCE, JJ., CONCUR. KITCHENS, J., DISSENTS WITH SEP ARATE WRITTENOPINION JOINED BYCHAN DL ER, J . C HAND LE R,J. , D IS SE NT S WIT H S EP AR AT E WRI TT ENOP IN ION JOI NE D B Y KIT CH EN S, J. KIN G, J ., NO T P ARTI CI PA TI NG . KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶13. I r es pect f

ul l y di s s entf

r om t he dec i s i on of

m y es t eemed col l eague s i n the maj or i t y that Shaf f er ’ s convi ct i on of

expl oi t at i on of

a chi l d shou l d be af

f i r m ed. I agr ee w i t h t he concl us i on of

t he C our tof

A ppeal s thatt he St at e f ai l ed t o pr ove beyond a r eas onabl e doubt t he el ement s of

the cr i m e, as s t at ed i n t he i ndi ctm entand as f ound i n t he pl ai n l anguage of M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 9 7 -5-3 3 (6) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). S h a ffe r v. S ta te , 2010 W L 3554354, at *2- 3 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. Sept
. 14, 2010)
. A ccor di ngl y, I bel i eve that , i n t he ci r cumst ance s , the p ro p e r c o u rs e is fo r u s to re v e rs e th e c o n v ic tio n a n d re n d e r j u d g m e n t in fa v o r o f S h a ff e r. The el em ent

s of the cr i m e as char

ged i n the i ndi ctm ent ¶ 1 4
. Ju stin D a v id S h a ffe r w a s in d icte d o n S e p tem b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , fo r e x p lo itatio n o f a c h ild
a n d p o ss e ss io n o f a w e a p o n b y a c o n v icte d fe lo n . C o u n t I o f th e in d ictm e n t is a s fo llo w s: J us t i n D avi d Shaf

f er. . . on orbe t w een J une 29, 2006 t hr ough J ul y 9, 20 06, di d unl aw f

ul l y, w i l l f

ul l y, and f

el oni ous l y thr ough the us e of m es s agi ng s ent vi a a c om put erand ce l l ul art el ephone know i ngl y ent i ce, i nduce, pers uade, sed u ce , so li cit , ad v ise, co erc e, or o rde r a ch ildu n d er the a ge o f 18 years , to m e e t w ith h im fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f e n g a g in g in s e x u a lly e x p lic it c o n d u c t . . . .6

( E m phas i s added. ) A ccor di ngl y, t he St at e i ncl uded “a chi l d undert he age of [ ei gh t een] y e a rs” a s a m a ter ial e lem e n t o f th e c rim e c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t. In so d o in g , the S tate to o k u p o n its e lf

th e o b lig a tio n o f p ro v in g th is a lle g a tio n b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. See In
re W in sh ip , 397 U
. S. 358, 3 62 , 9 0 S
. C t . 1068, 1071, 25 L
. E d. 2d 368 ( 1970) ( decl ar i ng b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t a s th e s ta n d a rd o f p ro o f i n c ri m in a l c a s e s ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). ¶15. M or eover , t hi s i ndi ctm entf ai l ed t o putShaf

f eron s uf f i ci entnot i ce thathi s def ens e, namel y t hathe had s ol i ci t ed an a dul tra t hert han a chi l d undert he age of ei ght een, w oul d be
u n a v a ila b le to h im a t tr ia l. See S p ice r v . S ta te , 921 S o. 2d 292, 319 ( M i s s . 2006) ( “The purpos e of

an i ndi ctm enti s t o f

ur ni s h the def

endant s not i ce a nd a r eas onabl e des cr i pt i on of t he cha r ges agai ns tt hem so thatt hey m ay pr epar e thei rdef ens e. ”) ( ci t i ng W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 4 4 5 S o . 2 d 7 9 8 , 8 0 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 )). S h affer u n su cc essfu ll y argu ed th is be fore the tri al co u rt in h is M o tio n fo r D ir e c te d V e rd ic t. ¶16. T he m aj or i t y concl udes t hat Shaf f er w as s eeki ng t o obt ai n s ex f r om a chi l d, and that he “w i l l notnow be hear d t o cl ai m t hathi s m i s t aken unde r s t andi ng of C hl oe’ s age mi t i gat es h i s a t t e mp tt o h a v e s e x wi t h a m i n o r . ” Ma j
. Op
. a t¶ 6
. T h i s i s c o n t r a r y t o e s t a b l i s h e d l a w, gi ven thatt he St at e f

ai l ed t o pr ove beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthe el ement“a c hi l d undert he
a g e o f [ e ig h te e n ] y e a rs ,” a s s p e c if ic a lly a n d u n e q u iv o c a lly c h a rg e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. See In re W in sh ip , 3 9 7 U .S . at 3 6 2 , 9 0 S . C t. at 1 0 7 1 ; s ee als o T a lley v. S ta te , 174 M i s s . 349, 164 So. 771 ( 19 35 ) ( “[ A ] p er s on cannotbe i ndi ct ed f orone of

f ens e and c onvi ct ed upon evi dence of

. . . a di f f er entof f ens e. ”)
. I tl ogi cal l y f

ol l ow s thatone ca nnotbe convi ct ed, as7

here, up on evidence w hich con st i tutes no cri m e at al l , i
. e. , sol i ci t i ng an ad ultforthe p urpose
o f e n g a g in g in s e x u a lly e x p lic it c o n d u c t. ¶17. I n M i s s i s s i ppi , w hen a dul y const i tut ed gr and j ury f or m al l y char ges a per s on w i th a
cr i m e, t he cha r gi ng documenti s cal l ed a tr ue bil l o f i nd i ct m ent. R espect i ng the grand jur ors’ char gi ng f

unct i on, t hey ar e underoa t h thatthey w i l l “true pr es entm entm ake, ” and thatt hey
w ill “ p re s e n t th e tru th , th e w h o le tr u th , a n d n o th in g b u t th e tru th . . . .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 3 -5 -4 5 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). In p re se n tin g , v ia in d ictm e n t, th a t S h a ffe r so u g h t to so licit a c h ild
un der the a ge o

f [ eigh t een] years t o engage i n sexua l conductw i t h hi m , w hen the undi s put ed t ruth is t hat the p ers on t o w ho m S haff er w as bei ng accused of m aking such ov ertures w as, ata l l r el evantt i m es , a n a dul t , the i ndi ctm ent , a s w r i t t en, f el l s hor tof

pr es ent i ng the trut h, t he
w h o le tru th , an d n o th in g b u t th e tru th ; itsim p ly w a s n o t t ru e th a t th e p e rso n a lleg e d ly
s ol i ci t ed by Shaf

f erw as a mi norchi l d “undert he age of [ ei ght een] year s , ” as the i ndi ctm ent p la in ly a lle g e s . ¶18. B as ed on t he St at e’ s t heory of t he cas e and i t s pr oof , as pr es ent ed at t r i al , t he corr ect char ge s houl d ha ve bee n at t em pt ed e x p lo itatio n o f a c h ild . T h e S tate a d d u c e d c o n sid e ra b le
ev iden ce to the effec t th at S h affer h ad en g ag ed in m u lt iple o v ert acts w ith a v iew tow ard
s exual act i vi t y w i t h t he s ever al adul tw om en w i t h w ho m h e w as comm uni cat i ng ( none of
w hom w as a s w or n l aw enf or cementoff

i cer ) , al l t he w hi l e bel i evi ng, al bei tm i s t akenl y, t hat he w as com m un i cat i ng w i t h a ch i l d u nd er the ag e of ei gh t een y ears . ¶19. H ad the St at e i ncorpor at ed i nt o t he gr and j ury’ s i ndi ctm entappr opr i at e l anguage f r om M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97-1- 7 (R ev. 2006) , M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s l ongs t andi ng gener al att empt8

s t atut e, coupl ed w i t h appr op r i a t e l a ng ua ge f r om Sec t i on 97- 5- 33( 6) , Shaf f ercoul d have be en pr os ecut ed f

orunl aw f

ul l y an d fel oni ous l y at t em pt i ng t o s ol i ci ta chi l d undert he age of
e ig h te e n y e a rs to e n g a g e in s e x u a lly e x p lic it c o n d u c t w ith h im , a n d , if c o n v ic te d , “
. . . puni s hed f

ora p e r i od o rf

ora n a mountn otg r e a t e rtha n i s p r e s c r i be d f orthe actual
c o m m is s io n o f t h e o ff

e n s e s o a tte m p te d .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -1 -7 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶20. T he C our tof

A ppeal s he l d thatthe i ndi ctm enti ns uf f i ci ent l y c har ged Shaf

f erw i th the
cr i m e of e xpl oi t at i on of

a c hi l d, butthatShaf

f erc oul d be a dj udged guil t y o f at t empt ed
e x p lo itatio n u n d e r th e “ d ire c t-re m a n d ru le” a n d w ith o u t fu rth e r in d ictm e n t p u rsu a n t to M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -5 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). Shaff er , 2010 W L 355435 4, at *4. T he d irec t- rem an d rule pro v ides th at “w h en th e jury co n v ict s of a g rea ter o ffen se, w h ich is i nval i dat ed on appe al f

orw antof

s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence , no new tr i al i s r equi r ed[ , ] and t he def endantm ay be r emanded f ors ent encing upon t he l es s eri ncl uded of f ens e w her e the pr oof es t abl i s hes pr oof

of t he l es s erof

f ens e. ” S h ields v. S ta te , 72 2 S o. 2d 58 4, 58 5 (M i ss. 1 9 9 8 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -5 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ) sta tes : O n an i ndi ctm entf

orany of f ens e the j ury m ay f

i nd t he def

endantgui l t y of

the of f ens e as char ged, orof

a ny a t t empt t o c om m i tthe s ame of f ens e, orm ay f

i nd h im g u ilty o f an inf

e rio r o ffe n se , o r o th e r o ffe n se , the c o m m iss io n o f w h ich is n e c e ss a rily in c lu d e d in th e o ffe n se w ith w h ich h e is c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t, w hetherthe s ame be a f el ony orm i s demeanor , w i t houtany addi t i onal count i n t he i ndi ctm entf

ort hatpurpos e. ¶2 1
. I disa g re e w ith th e c o n c lu sio n that a n att em p ted s o li cit ati o n o f a c h il d is a lesseri ncl uded of

f ens e w here p un i shm entundert he gene r al at t empt s t atut e “s hal l be .
. . f oran
a m o u n t n o t g re a te r t h a n is p re s c ri b e d fo r t h e a c tu a l c o m m is s io n o f t h e o ff e n s e s o a tte m p te d .”9

M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -1-7 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). M o reo v er, th e p lain lan g u ag e o f S ec ti o n 9 9 -19 -5 d o e s n o t m e n tio n a p p e llate c o u rts, b u t ra th e r p ro v id e s th a t “ the jury may f i nd t he def

endant gui l t y of .
. . any at t empt t o comm i tt he s ame of f ens e” w i t houti ncl udi ng an addi t i onal count i n the i nd i ct m ent. (E m ph asi s add ed. ) T his C ou rth as nev er hel d t hat an at t em pted cri m e i s a l es s er - i ncl uded of

f ens e of t he compl et ed cr i m e and, t hus , s ubj ectt o the di r ect - r emand rul e. Shaf f erm oved f

ora di r ect ed ver di ctatt he cl os e of the St at e’ s cas e, bas ed on hi s cont ent i on t hatt he St at e had f

ai l ed to prove al l of

t he el ement s pl ed i n t he i ndi ctm entbeyond a
r eas onabl e doubt , a pos i t i on i n w hi ch he cl ear l y w as cor r ect . H i s m ot i on s houl d have be en
s us t ai ned. A ccor di ngl y, r emand f orsent enci ng undert he gener al at t empt s t atut e, M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e S e c tio n 9 7 -1 -7 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ), i s n o t th e a p p ro p ri a te d is p o s itio n o f t h is c a s e . ¶ 2 2
. T h e S tate c h a rg e d th a t S h a ffe r a c tu a lly h a d so licite d se x u a lly e x p licit in ter a c tio n w ith a chi l d undert he age of ei ghte en yea r s , buti t s pr oof w as atcons i der abl e var i ance w i th t he char gi ng documenton w hi ch the ca s e w as t r i ed. T he j ury w as i ns t ruct ed thatt he St at e w as
re q u ir e d to p ro v e , in tera lia , t he el ement“a chi l d undert he age of ei ght een ye ar s , ” and that t hi s , a l ong w i t h the ot hermat er i al e l ement s of the cr i m e char ged, ha d t o be pr oved beyond
a r eas onabl e doubt
. H ow ever , t hatm at er i al el ementof the cr i m e char ged w as notpr oven at
a ll, a n d , in ste a d , th e p ro o f a d d u c e d w a s th a t S h a ffe r’s so licita tio n , in tru th , w a s d ire c ted to
a d u lts , n o t to a c h ild u n d e r t h e a g e o f e ig h te e n y e a rs . ¶2 3. Shaf

f er ar gued i n t he Cour t of A ppe a l s t ha t t he e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt t o pr ove beyond a r eas onabl e doubtevery el ementof the cr i m e w i t h w hi ch he w as char ged. A ccor di ngl y, “t he cr i t i cal i nqui r y i s w hethert he evi dence s how s beyond a r eas onabl e doubt10

t hat[ t he] acc us ed com m i t t ed t he actchar ged, and thathe di d s o underci r cumst ance s t hat
every el ementof the of

f ens e exi s t ed. ” Co lem a n v. S ta te , 947 So. 2d 878, 881 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. “Shoul d t he f act s and i nf

er ence s cons i der ed i n a cha l l enge t o the suff i ci ency of the ev i den ce ‘poi nt i n favor of the d efendan ton an y elem ent of t he o ff ense
w i t h s uf f i ci entf or ce thatr eas onabl e m en cou l d nothave f ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubt t hatt he def

endantw as gui l t y, ’ t he pr operr emedy i s f ort he appe l l at e courtt o r ever s e and
r ender
. ” B u s h v. S ta te, 895 So. 2d 836, 843 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng E dw a rds v . S ta te , 469 S o . 2 d 6 8 , 7 0 (M is s . 1 9 8 5 ))
. ¶24. I ti s uncontr over t ed that , dur i ng the cour s e of s ol i ci t i ng “C hl oe” f

ors exual act i vi ty, S h a f f e r , i n a c tu a l i t y , wa s c h a t t i n g wi t h a n a d u l two ma n v i a c o mp u t e ra n d t a l k i n g wi t h t wo adul tw om en on sepa r at e occa s i ons vi a cel l ul art el ephone, al l of w hom he bel i eved t o be one th irtee n -y e a r-o ld g irl. T h e fa c t th a t th e w o m e n w ith w h o m h e a c tu a lly c o n v e rse d w e re a d u lts f avor s t he def

endanton t he el ementof “a c hi l d undert he age of [ ei ght een] year s ” w i t h s uch “s uf f i ci entfor ce thatre as onabl e m en coul d nothave f ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthat th e d e fe n d a n t w a s g u ilty ” o f e x p lo ita tio n o f a c h ild
. B u sh , 895 So. 2d at843. T hus , w hen S h affer m o v ed for a d ir ec ted v erd icta t th e c lose o f th e S tat e’s c ase -i n -ch ief, the tri al co u rt
s houl d have gr ant ed hi s m ot i on. Shaf f err enew ed hi s obj ect i ons post - t r i al i n hi s m ot i on f or ju d g m e n t n o tw ith sta n d in g th e v e rd ict, w h e re in h e a rg u e d th a t th e trial c o u rt h a d f a iled to i ns t ructt he j ur y t hathi s w as a n a t t empt ed cr i m e, buti ns t ead had i ns t ruct ed t he j ury a s t o t he el ement s o f

t he compl et ed cr i m e cha r ged, i ncl udi ng t he el ement“a c hi l d undert he age of
e ig h tee n y e a rs.” A g a in , the trial c o u rt sh o u ld h a v e g ra n ted th e m o tio n fo r d ire c ted v e rd ict,11

o r alt ern ati v ely, sh o u ld ha v e g ran ted S h affer jud g m en t no tw ith stan d ing the v erd ict(JN O V ). A cc o rdin g ly, i n the p o sture tha t th is case w a s p re sen ted to u s o n ap p ea l, w ith the S tat e’s havi ng f ai l ed t o pr ove Shaf

f ergui l t y of t he off

ens e w i t h w hi ch he w as char ged i n t he i ndi ctm ent , t he convi ct i on s houl d be r ever s ed and r ender ed. The pl ai n l anguage of

Sect i on 97- 5- 33(

6) ¶2 5. A tt he t i m e of

Shaf f er ’ s i ndi ct m ent , t he s t atut e underw hi ch t he cha r ge w as p ro se c u ted , M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 7 -5 -3 3 (6 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ), p ro v id e d : “N o p e rso n sh a ll, b y an y m ea n s inc lud ing co m p u ter, k n o w ing ly en ti ce , ind u ce , p ersu ad e, sed u ce , so licit, ad v ise , co erc e, or o rde r a c h ild t o m eetw i t h t he def

endantorany otherper s on f ort he p u rpo se o f en g ag ing in se x u all y ex p li citco n d u ct. ” (E m p h asis a d d e d
. ) T h e tri al co u rt in stru c ted th e ju ry th a t a chi ld m eanta per s on “underthe age of eight een ye ar s . ” Thi s w as in k ee p ing w ith the d efinit ion fou n d in M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 9 7 -5-3 1 (a) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ),
w hi ch r eads : “A s us ed i n Sec t i ons 97- 5- 33 thr ough 97- 5- 37, t he f ol l ow i ng w or ds and phr as es
s hal l have the meani ngs gi ven t o them i n t hi s s ect i on: ‘ C hi l d’ m eans any i ndi vi dual w ho has
n o t a tta in e d th e a g e o f e ig h te e n (1 8 ) y e a rs .” ¶ 2 6
. F irm ly e sta b lish e d M iss iss ip p i law d icta tes : [C ]ri m in a l statu tes are to b e strictly co n stru e d ag a in st th e S tate an d lib e ra lly in fa v o r o f t h e a c c u s e d
. McL a m b v. S ta te , 4 5 6 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). W hen the w or ds of

a s t atut e ar e pl ai n and unambi guous ther e i s no r oom f or i nt erpr et at i on or con s t ruct i on, and w e appl y the s t atut e ac cor di ng t o the m e a n in g o f t h o s e w o rd s . H a r r iso n v. S ta te , 80 0 S o. 2d 11 34 , 11 37 (M i ss. 2001)
. I ti s onl y w hen a s t atut e i s uncl earorambi guous thatw e l ook beyond th e la n g u a g e o f t h e s ta tu te to d e te rm in e its m e a n in g . I d. ( ci t i ng K

er r-McG ee Chem . Cor

p. v. B uelow , 6 7 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 , 1 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ); A l lr ed v. W ebb, 64112

S o . 2 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ); Cla rk v . S ta te ex re l. M iss . S ta te Me d

. A ss 'n , 3 8 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 4 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 0 )). Co le m a n , 947 So. 2d at881. T he m aj or i t y has i m perm i s s i bl y al t er ed t he pl ai n m eani ng of t he w or d c h ild

i n Sect i on 97- 5- 33( 6) t o i ncl ude an a dul t . T hi s C our t“may notenl arge or
r es t r i cta s t atut e w her e t he m eani ng of the s t atut e i s cl ear . ” G ilm e rv. S ta te, 955 So. 2d 829, 833 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng State v. T r aylor , 1 0 0 M iss. 5 4 4 , 5 5 8

– 5 9 , 5 6 S o . 5 2 1 , 5 2 3 (19 1 1 )). ¶27. T he St at e ar gued t o t he t r i al court and t o t he C our t of A ppeal s t hat M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97-5- 33( 8) i s t o be r ead i n conj unct i on w i t h Sect i on 97- 5- 33( 6) and thatSubse ct i on 8 rem o v ed the re q u ir em en t th at th e c ri m inal co n d u ct be directed at an ac tual ch il d
. B efo re i t s amendm ent i n 2007, Sect i on 97- 5- 33( 8) r ead a s f ol l ow s : “The f

actt hatan under cover oper at i ve orl aw enf

or cementof

f i cerw as i nvol ved i n t he det ect i on and i nves t i gat i on of the
o ff e n s e u n d e r t h is s e c tio n s h a ll n o t c o n s titu te a d e fe n s e to a p ro s e c u tio n u n d e r t h is s e c tio n .” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 5- 33 ( R ev. 2006)
. T hus , the pl ai n and unambi guous m eani ng of Sect i on 97- 5- 33( 8) a s a ppl i ed t o the i ndi ctm enti n t he pr es entcas e w oul d have de ni ed Shaf f er hi s t heory of

def ens e onl y i f

an under coveroper at i ve or l aw enf or cementof

f i cerhad bee n i nvol ved i n t he det ect i on and i nves t i gati on of hi s know i ngl y havi ng ent i ced, i nduced, per s uaded, s educe d, s ol i ci t ed, ad vi s ed, coer ced, oror der ed “a chi l d undert he age of [e ig h te e n ] y e a rs , to m e e t w ith h im fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f e n g a g in g in s e x u a lly e x p lic it c o n d u c t.” T o t he contr ary, t hi s does notre m ove t he r equi s i t e el ement , as pl ed i n t hi s i ndi ctm ent , t hat th e c ri m e m u s t h a v e b e e n d ir e c te d a t a n a c tu a l c h ild
.13

¶28
. T h e S t at e further argued in i t s bri ef that the 20 07 am end m ent served o nly t o clar i fy t hat the legi sl ature ha d al w ays int end ed t o uti l i ze S ect i on 9 7-5-33(8) t o p recl ud e t he d efense t hatt he cr i m e w as notdi r ect ed atan ac tual chi l d. T he 2007 amendm entt o Sect i on 97- 5- 33( 8) p ro v id e s: T h e fa ct th at an u n d erc o v er o p era ti v e o r law en forc em en t offi ce r po sed as a chi ld orw as i nvol ved i n any otherm anneri n t he det ect i on and i nvest i gat i on of an of f ens e undert hi s sec t i on s hal l notcons t i tut e a de f ens e t o a pr os ecut i on undert hi s s ect i on. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 5- 33( 8) ( Supp
. 2011) ( emphasi s added)
. Sect i on 97- 5- 33( 8) as amended i n 2007 do es no tap pl y, how ever , becaus e the al l eged c onductgi vi ng r i s e t o t he
c r i me wi t h w hi c h Sha f

f e rwas c ha r ge d oc c urr e d be t w e e n J un e 2 9, 2 00 6, a nd J ul y 9, 2006. T o appl y t he 2007 amendm enti n t he pr es entcas e w oul d r es ul ti n S haff er’ s havi ng been pr os ecut ed underan ex p o st fa c to l aw . A n ex pos tf act o law i s one w hich “pu nis h[es ] as a crim e a n ac t pre v iou sly c o m m itted, w h ich w as in n o ce n t w h en d o n e . . . m ak e[s] m o re bur dens om e the puni s hm entf ora cr i m e, af

t eri t s com m i s s i on . . . [ or ] depr i ve[ s ] one cha r ged
w i t h [ a] cr i m e of

any def ens e avail abl e ac cor di ng t o l aw atthe t i m e w hen the ac tw as
c o m m itte d
. Col

lins v. Y oungblood , 497 U
. S. 37, 52, 110 S
. C t . 2 71 5, 2724, 111 L
. E d. 2d 3 0 (1 9 9 0 ). See U .S . C o n s t. a rt . I, § 1 0 , c l. 1
. ¶29. T he maj or i t y has i nt erpr et ed the w or d c h ild , f ound i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 5- 3 3 (6 ), to in c lu d e a n a d u lt p o sin g a s a c h ild in c o n tra v e n tio n o f th e w e ll-es tab lish e d p rin c ip le t hatcr i m i nal s t atut es ar e t o be str i ct l y cons t rued aga i ns tt he St at e and l i ber al l y i n f avorof t he
a c c u s e d
. Co le m a n , 947 So. 2d at881. T o af f i r m thi s convi ct i on w oul d i gnor e the f actt hat14

t he el ement s of

t he cr i m e, as char ged i n the i ndi ct m ent, def i ned chi ld as a per s on under ei ght een ye ar s of

age, and thatt he j ur y w as i ns t ruct ed acc or di ngl y. B eca us e the St at e f ai l ed t o prove beyo nd a r e a s on a bl e do ub tt he mat e r i a l e l e ment s of t he c r i me, a s c ha r ge d i n the i ndi ctm ent , t his C our ts houl d r ever s e and r enderthe convi ct i on as t o C ountI , expl oi t at i on of a chi l d. CHANDL ER , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON. CH AN DL E R, J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶30. I r es pect f

ul l y di s s ent . I concur w i t h t he anal ys i s and r es ul t advoca t ed by m y l earned col l eague , J us t i ce K i t chens
. I w r i t e s epar at el y t o pr ovi de a di s cus s i on of w hy I w ou l d not
a p p ly th e d ir e c t- re m a n d ru le to th is c a s e . ¶31. I n S h ields v . S ta te , 722 So. 2d 584, 585 ( M i s s . 1998) , t hi s C our ts t at ed that“w hen the j ur y convi ct s of

a gr eat erof

f ens e, w hi ch i s i nval i dat ed on appea l f orw antof

s uf f i ci ency of t he evi dence , no new t r i al i s r equi r ed and the def endantm ay be r emanded f ors ent enci ng
u p o n th e le s s e r i n c lu d e d o ff e n s e w h e re th e p ro o f e s ta b lis h e s p ro o f o f t h e le s s e r o ff e n s e .” T h is p ri n c ip le is k n o w n a s th e d ir e c t- re m a n d ru le
. I d. T he r at i onal e behi nd the rul e i s that “gui l tof a t rue l es s eri ncl uded of f ens e i s i m pl i ci t l y found i n t he j ury’ s ver di ctof gui l ton t he gr eat erof

f ens e. ” I d. ( ci t i ng W

a s h in g to n v . S ta te , 222 M i s s . 782, 787, 77 So. 2d 260, 263 (1 9 5 5 ))
. Shi elds h eld th at th is ru le ap p li e s ev en w h en the tri al c o u rt d id n o t give a lesse rin c lu d e d -o ff

e n s e ju ry in s tru c tio n . I d. at587.15

¶32. T he C our t of A ppeal s hel d t hat t he di r ect - r emand rul e appl i ed, perm i t t i ng i t s r emand to th e tr ial c o u rtfo r S h affer’s re sen tenc ing fo r attem p t. In su p p o rto f this resu lt , the C o u rt
o f A p p e a ls c ited M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -5 (1 ), w h ich sta tes : O n an i ndi ctm entf

orany of f ens e the j ury m ay f

i nd t he def

endantgui l t y of

the of f ens e as char ged, orof

a ny a t t empt t o c om m i tthe s ame of f ens e, orm ay f

i nd h im g u ilty o f a n in fe rio r o ffe n se , o r o th e r o ffe n se , the c o m m iss io n o f w h ich is n e c e ss a rily in c lu d e d in th e o ffe n se w ith w h ich h e is c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t, w hethert he s ame be a fel on y orm i s demeanor , w i t houtany addi t i onal count i n t he i ndi ctm entf

ort hatpurpos e. M i s s . Code A nn. § 99- 19- 5( 1) ( R ev. 2007)
. T he C our tof A ppeal s hel d that , beca us e under S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -5 (1 ), th e c h ild - e x p lo itatio n c h a rg e h a d p lac e d S h a ffe r o n n o tice th a t h e c o u ld be f ound gui l t y of

at t empt ed chi l d - expl oi t at i on , the di r ect - r emand rul e appl i ed. B utt he di r ect - r emand rul e onl y perm i t s r es ent enci ng f ora l es s er - i ncl uded of f ens e. A s J us t i ce K i t chens poi nt s out , t hi s C our tneverhas hel d t hatat t empt i s a l es s er - i ncl uded of f ens e of t he compl et ed cr i m e. ¶33. W hethera t t empt i s a l esser -i ncluded off ense of t he co m plet ed cri m e vari es by j ur i s di c t i on , a nd de pe nd s up on t he e l e ment s s e tou ti n tha tj ur i s di c t i on ’ s s t a tut e c od i f yi ng at t empt . U ndert he f

eder al appr oach, t he cr i m e of at t empt i ncl udes t w o el ement s : ( 1) t hatt he def endantact ed w i t h t he cul pabi l i t y r equi r ed by the under l yi ng s ubs t ant i ve of f ens e, and ( 2) t hatt he def

endantt ook a s ubs t ant i al s t ep t ow ar d the comm i s s i on of the s ubs t ant i ve of

f ens e. U . S. v. B ar low , 568 F. 3d 215, 219 ( 5th C i r . 2009)
. B eca us e the s ubs t ant i ve of f ens e i ncl udes bot h of t he el ement s of

an at t empt t o c om m i tthatof f ens e, the f

eder al cour t s have he l d that
a tte m p t i s a le s s e r- in c lu d e d o ff e n s e o f th e s u b s ta n tiv e o ff e n s e . U . S. v. Cas tr o- Tr e v ino , 46416

F. 3d 536, 543 ( 5t h C i r . 2 006) ( ci t i ng U . S. v. Y ork , 5 7 8 F
. 2 d 1 0 3 6 , 1 0 4 0 (5th C ir
. 1 9 7 8 )); U .S . v. R e m ig io , 767 F
. 2d 730, 733 ( 10t h C i r . 1985). T he Fi f t h C i r cui thas hel d t hat , w hen a d efe n d an t w as co n v ict ed of th e su b stan ti v e o ffen se, bu t th e fa cts w ere su ffi cien t t o su p p o rt onl y a convi ct i on of

at t empt , t he courti s empow er ed t o m odi f y t he j udgm entto r ef

l ect
a tte m p t w ith o u t im p a c tin g th e d e fe n d a n t’ s ri g h ts . I d. ¶34. In con t ras t , thi s C ourthas hel d thatatt empt i s an i ndi ct abl e of f ens e, s epar at e and d is tin c t f ro m th e c o m p le te d c ri m e . Ma so n v. S ta te , 4 3 0 S o . 2 d 8 5 7 , 8 5 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). In M issi ssipp i, th e crim e o f at tem p t inclu d es the foll o w ing th ree elem en ts: (1) an inte n t to
c o m m it an o ffe n se ; (2 ) a n o v e rt a c t to w a rd its c o m m iss io n ; an d (3 ) th e fa ilu re to c o n su m m a te its c o m m is s io n . M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -1 -7 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). W e h a v e h e ld th a t th e fa ilu re to
cons um m at e the compl et ed cr i m e i s an ess ent i al el ementof a t t empt as def i ned by Sect i on 97- 1 -7
. I d. ¶35. T he di r ect - r emand rul e appl i es w hen t he pr oof w as s uf f i ci ent t o s uppor t a convi ct i on of a l es s er - i ncl uded of

f ens e, butw as i ns uf

f i ci ent to supp or ta convi ct i on of the compl et ed
o ff e n s e . Shi elds , 7 2 2 S o . 2 d a t 5 8 5 . “[A ] l e ss e r-in c lu d e d o ffe n se ‘is o n e in w h ich a ll i ts
es s ent i al i ngr edi ent s ar e cont ai ned i n t he of f ens e f orw hi ch t he acc us ed i s i ndi ct ed, butnot al l of t he es s ent i al i ngr edi ent s of t he i ndi ct ed of

f ens e. A n acc us ed coul d notbe gui l t y of the of f ens e f orw hi ch he i s i ndi ct ed w i t houtatt he s ame t i m e bei ng gui l t y of t he l es s er - i ncl uded of f ens e. ’ ” G a u se v. S ta te , 65 So. 3d 295, 300 ( M i s s . 2011) ( quot i ng T h o m a s v . S ta te , 48 So. 3 d 4 6 0 , 4 7 2 (M is s . 2 0 1 0 ))
.17

¶ 3 6
. B e c a u se th e c rim e o f a ttem p t in c lu d e s th e e ss e n tial e lem e n t o f f a ilu re to c o n su m m a te the c o m p let ed cri m e, w h ich is n o t an elem en t o f th e c o m p let ed crim e, att em p t i s n o t a l esse rin c lu d e d o ffe n se o f th e c o m p lete d c rim e . T h e re fo re , the d ire c t-re m a n d ru le w o u ld n o t ap p ly to p e rm it res e n ten c in g fo r a ttem p t. I w o u ld fin d th a t th e d ire c t-re m a n d ru le is in a p p lica b le t o Shaf f er ’ s convi ct i on f

ort he com plet ed cr i m e of chi l d - expl oi t at i on, w her e the pr oof
s uf f i ci ent l y s uppor t ed onl y the cr i m e of a t t empt ed chi l d - e xpl oi t at i on. Fort hi s r eas on, and fo r t h e re a s o n s a rt ic u la te d b y J u s tic e K itc h e n s , I w o u ld re v e rs e a n d re n d e r. KI TC HENS , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.