Opinion ID: 2630000
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Motions to Dismiss and for Acquittal/Sufficiency of Evidence

Text: [¶ 8] The same theme runs through Mr. Adams' claims that the district court erred in not granting his motion to dismiss the claims prior to trial and not granting his motion for acquittal for lack of sufficient evidence  his contention that he was charged with solicitation of a minor when no actual minor was involved. In both arguments, he appears to ignore the fact that the information charged him, and the jury convicted him, of attempted violation of the statutes. Whether the statutes proscribing attempted inducement of a child to engage in sexual conduct and attempted solicitation of a child to engage in illicit sexual penetration or intrusion require an actual child victim is a question of law which this Court reviews de novo. Rutti v. State, 2004 WY 133, ¶ 9, 100 P.3d 394, ¶ 9 (Wyo.2004). [¶ 9] Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence is well established. [W]e must determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not consider conflicting evidence presented by the unsuccessful party, and afford every favorable inference which may be reasonably and fairly drawn from the successful party's evidence. We have consistently held that it is the jury's responsibility to resolve conflicts in the evidence. (citing Wetherelt v. State, 864 P.2d 449, 452 (Wyo.1993)). We will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury, ... our only duty is to determine whether a quorum of reasonable and rational individuals would, or even could, have come to the same result as the jury actually did. Id. Blakeman v. State, 2004 WY 139, ¶ 11, 100 P.3d 1229, ¶ 11 (Wyo.2004). [¶ 10] Without question, no child victim exists in this case. However, because the State did not charge Mr. Adams with violation of the child solicitation statutes but with attempting such a violation, that fact is not relevant. The evidence established Mr. Adams believed he was conversing with, and intending to meet and have sexual relations with, a 15 year old girl. He seems to suggest that before charges can be brought under the general attempt statute, there must be an actual minor victim. However, he provides no authority or cogent argument in support of that position. [¶ 11] Section 6-1-301 provides: (a) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if: (i) With the intent to commit the crime, he does any act which is a substantial step towards commission of the crime. A substantial step is conduct which is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the person's intention to complete the commission of the crime; or (ii) He intentionally engages in conduct which would constitute the crime had the attendant circumstances been as the person believes them to be. [¶ 12] Mr. Adams was charged with attempting to cause, induce, entice, or coerce a child to engage in, or be used for any explicit sexual conduct in violation of § 6-4-303(b)(ii) and attempting to solicit, procure, or knowingly encourage anyone under the age of 16 years to engage in illicit sexual penetration or sexual intrusion in violation of § 14-3-104. We have held absent a showing that the legislature intended to preclude use of the general attempt statute by the enactment of a special statute making the attempt a crime, a prosecutor may charge under the general attempt statute. Bueno-Hernandez v. State, 724 P.2d 1132, 1140 (Wyo.1986). Neither statute in question here criminalizes the attempt to commit the described crimes. Thus, the general attempt statute applies. [¶ 13] The elements of the crime of attempt are: 1) an intent to do an act or bring about certain consequences which would in law amount to a crime; and 2) an act in furtherance of that intent which, as it is most commonly put, goes beyond mere preparation. Compton v. State, 931 P.2d 936, 940 (Wyo.1997). We clarified in Compton the purpose of the general attempt statute is not to deter the completion of a particular crime, but to impose punishment and corrective action on those who have shown their dangerousness. Id. Mr. Adams clearly communicated his intent to entice a minor to engage in sexual acts and to encourage a minor to engage in sexual intrusion. He then took specific action to effectuate that intent, including driving to the proposed meeting place armed with wine coolers and condoms, thus meeting the requisite elements of the general attempt statute. [¶ 14] Although he does not specifically characterize it as such, Mr. Adams posits his claim of error on the common law doctrine of legal impossibility which stems from a historical reluctance to punish defendants for unconsummated crimes. Audrey Rogers,  New Technology, Old Defenses: Internet Sting Operations and Attempt Liability,  38 U. Rich. L.Rev. 477 (2003-2004). Courts in jurisdictions which have adopted this defense have concluded a defendant cannot be convicted of attempting a crime if the circumstances are such that ultimate commission of the crime would have been impossible. However, we find no precedent in the jurisprudence of this state wherein that defense has been recognized. In fact, in Rutti, ¶ 38, it was expressly rejected. While the facts in Rutti are somewhat different from those in the instant case, in holding that no prosecutorial misconduct had occurred, we noted that an actual child victim is not required for a conviction of attempted solicitation of a minor. The defendant in Rutti also thought he was soliciting sex over the Internet from a minor when it was actually an adult agent of the Division of Criminal Investigation. Seeking to withdraw his guilty plea, the defendant claimed the prosecution should have informed the court that it was legally impossible for him to have solicited a minor when the recipient of his advances was an adult law enforcement agent. This Court did not address the prosecutorial misconduct claim because it was clear that legal impossibility was not a defense to a charge of attempt and stated: Under Wyoming law, a person is guilty of attempting to commit a crime if [h]e intentionally engages in conduct which would constitute the crime had the attendant circumstances been as the person believes them to be. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-301(a)(ii) (LexisNexis 2003). Rutti allegedly believed he was chatting with a minor. As such, he could be prosecuted for attempted solicitation of a minor. See generally Cashatt v. State, 873 So.2d 430, 436 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2004) (A person is guilty of an attempted child solicitation if the evidence demonstrates that he had a specific intent to commit the substantive offense and under the circumstances as he believed them to be took actions to consummate the substantive offense, even though circumstances unknown to him made completion of the substantive offense impossible, and the fact that the receiver of the `luring' communications was an adult undercover agent posing as a child is irrelevant to the culpability of the sender of the communications for attempting to lure a child to commit an illegal sexual act.) Id. [¶ 15] Furthermore, it appears plain from the language of the general attempt statute the legislature intended the same result. One is guilty of attempt if he or she engages in conduct which would constitute the crime had the attendant circumstances been as he or she believed them to be. Section 6-1-301(a)(ii). The focus of the statute is upon the subjective intent of the perpetrator, not the actual circumstances involved. [¶ 16] Our reasoning in Rutti is similar to that followed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Munro, 394 F.3d 865, 869 (10th Cir.2005), which also involved an adult undercover police officer communicating with the defendant over the Internet. Affirming Mr. Munro's conviction for attempted commission of the crime, the Tenth Circuit noted that the undercover agent did nothing to initiate the conversations about sex or meeting with the defendant, but that the defendant's actions without question indicated his intent to solicit a minor for sexual activity and he undertook a substantial step toward completion of the crime by going to the prearranged meeting place. Id. at 869-870. This reasoning is in concert with many other jurisdictions which have upheld attempt convictions where law enforcement officers pose as minors on the Internet. Cashatt v. State, 873 So.2d 430 (Fla.Ct.App.2004); People v. Hsu, 82 Cal.App.4th 976, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 184 (2000); Laughner v. State, 769 N.E.2d 1147 (Ind.Ct.App.2002); United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1223 (llth Cir.2002). See also, Rogers, supra. As noted by commentators, Internet cases such as this one obviate the concern which spawned the impossibility doctrine that persons could be convicted of bad thoughts. Instead, the very nature of these cases, which capture the attempted communication with, and solicitation of, children, justifies the purpose of statutes which criminalize attempt and punish the dangerous conduct before it impacts a child. Rogers, supra. As a matter of law, we hold the presence of a minor victim is not a requisite for a conviction of attempted solicitation of a minor under § 6-4-303(b)(ii) or § 14-3-104. [¶ 17] In a related argument, Mr. Adams claimed the State's failure to identify a named minor victim hampered him in preparing a defense. We find this contention unpersuasive. He was fully informed prior to trial of the date of his alleged offense, the content of his alleged conversations with the undercover agent, and the substantial steps he took to complete the crime. He was well-prepared for trial. While our opinion in Walker v. State 847 P.2d 542, 545 (Wyo.1993) held a victim should be identified before trial, the purpose was to avoid prejudicing the defendant by the absence of such identification. Mr. Adams experienced no such prejudice in this case.