Opinion ID: 1919593
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Evidence Was Sufficient to Support Pischel's Conviction.

Text: [6] Pischel was charged under § 28-320.02 which provides: No person shall knowingly solicit, coax, entice, or lure (a) a child sixteen years of age or younger or (b) a peace officer who is believed by such person to be a child sixteen years of age or younger, by means of a computer ... to engage in an act which would be in violation of section 28-319 .... Under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-319 (Reissue 2008), Any person who subjects another person to sexual penetration ... when the actor is nineteen years of age or older and the victim is ... less than sixteen years of age is guilty of sexual assault in the first degree. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-318(6) (Reissue 2008) defines [s]exual penetration to include sexual intercourse in its ordinary meaning, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, or any intrusion, however slight, of any part of the actor's or victim's body ... into the genital or anal openings of the victim's body which can be reasonably construed as being for nonmedical or nonhealth purposes. Pischel asserts that there was not sufficient evidence to support his conviction for use of a computer to entice a child for sexual purposes or, more specifically in this case, to entice a peace officer who is believed by the defendant to be a child 16 years of age or younger. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The main pieces of evidence supporting Pischel's conviction were the transcripts of the online conversations between Pischel and Sexton posing as ljb92. Such transcripts provided evidence that Pischel used a computer to communicate with a person using the screen name ljb92, who Pischel was told was a 15-year-old girl. The transcripts further showed that Pischel offered to perform cunnilingus on ljb92, asked whether ljb92 wanted to have sexual intercourse with him and perform fellatio on him, suggested that the two meet to engage in such activities, and made arrangements to meet with ljb92. In order to prove that Pischel was the person using the screen name lincolnpietaster to communicate with ljb92, the State presented evidence that Pischel arrived at the time and location arranged for a meeting between lincolnpietaster and ljb92. In addition to the evidence presented by the State, in his testimony offered in his defense, Pischel admitted that he took part in online conversations with ljb92 using the screen name lincolnpietaster, that he initiated such conversations, and that he initiated discussions of sexual behavior. Such evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under § 28-320.02. From such evidence the jury, as a rational trier of facts, could have found that Pischel used a computer to communicate with a police officer posing as a child 16 years of age or younger and that during such conversation Pischel solicited, coaxed, enticed, or lured such person to engage in acts of cunnilingus, fellatio, and sexual intercourse and that such acts, when performed with a person less than 16 years of age, would have been in violation of § 28-319. In addition, as discussed below, the jury could rationally have found that Pischel believed that the person with whom he communicated was a child 16 years of age or younger. Section 28-320.02, of which Pischel stands convicted, requires, inter alia, that when the individual with whom he or she is corresponding is a peace officer, the defendant believe that the individual with whom he or she is corresponding is a child 16 years of age or younger. Pischel argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he actually believed that ljb92 was a 15-year-old girl. In this regard, he refers us to his testimony at trial that he did not believe ljb92 was really a 15-year-old girl and that instead, he believed that ljb92 was an adult woman who was role-playing as a 15-year-old. He also refers us to the online conversations where he points out that although he was offering to have sexual relations with ljb92, he also indicated he did not want to meet if ljb92 was a cop trying to bust me for sex with a minor. In contrast, the State notes that there was evidence that during the conversations, ljb92 stated that she was 15 years old, that ljb92 sent Pischel a picture of a girl who was 15 years old or younger and told Pischel that it was a picture of ljb92, and that Pischel's computer contained the profile created for ljb92 which indicated that ljb92 was born in 1992. It is for the jury to assess the credibility of witnesses, see State v. Davis, 276 Neb. 755, 757 N.W.2d 367 (2008), and the evidence noted by the State was sufficient to give the jury a basis to find that, contrary to Pischel's testimony, Pischel actually believed that ljb92 was a child 16 years of age or younger. The evidence in this case was sufficient for the jury to find Pischel guilty of violating § 28-320.02. We therefore reject Pischel's first assignment of error.