Court Opinion

ID: 9559258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:25:04.102011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:23.258834
License: Public Domain

ORME, Presiding Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the court’s opinion. I-write separately to emphasize that our decision today goes well beyond the approach taken in State v. Scieszka, 897 P.2d 1224 (Utah App.1995). In that case, we seemed to assume that “entice,” as used in the statute, required a pattern of ongoing, systematic, purposeful conduct with at least an implicit offer of some kind of reward. Id. at 1228. In the instant case we have, in essence, equated the word entice, as used in the statute, to include any situation in which the adult participant takes the lead in bringing about the sexual encounter complained of; we have basically equated “entices” and “seduces.” 1
*358I see no problem with taking this new interpretative tack. Indeed, it better comports with the settled definition of “entice” as meaning only “incite” or “instigate,” “to draw into evil ways ... lead astray,” or “tempt.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 757 (1986). However, I think it will promote uniformity in enforcement and in instructing juries to make explicit the interpretation we employ, because some portions of the main opinion, taken in isolation, are reminiscent of the more restrictive view employed in Scieszka2 For example, the main opinion points out that defendant bought A.A. gifts, that A.A. made improper sexual statements about defendant to which he did not object, and that defendant did not object when A.A. characterized herself as his girlfriend.
However, while A.A., his daughter’s best friend, often accompanied defendant and his daughter while shopping, visiting friends, or going out to eat, there is only one instance when he actually purchased A.A. something more substantial than a soft drink. At the same time he bought his daughter a bathing suit at a discount store, he also purchased a suit for A.A.3 A.A. did make inappropriate sexual remarks to defendant on a couple of occasions — which seems more akin to A.A. enticing defendant rather than vice versa. Although defendant did not necessarily openly object to these improper statements, neither does the record indicate he did anything to encourage them. In fact, defendant testified that A.A.’s behavior in that regard embarrassed him. A.A. herself admitted that when asked if she and defendant were a couple, both said, ‘Tes,” but were “just joking around.”
When the smoke clears in this case, all we really have is an adult who instigates a sexual encounter with a teenage visitor, without force or cajoling on his part or resistance or protest on her part. If she were older than seventeen, we would regard the encounter as consensual. Because she was only fourteen, she is deemed not to have consented if defendant enticed her. Defendant enticed her simply because he was the instigator. Nothing more is required under the statute.
Given what I believe the Legislature’s purpose to be, as explained in the main opinion, I have no difficulty with this interpretation, although there will be some who think we have gone too far in aiding the Legislature’s protection of this class of teenagers from sexual exploitation by adults. Of course, if we have gone further than the Legislature intended, it will be an easy enough matter for the Legislature to revise the statute to better accord with its intent, although it is hard to imagine the Legislature would wish to make it more difficult to prosecute adults who sexually exploit teenage children.

. Stated the other way, about the only circumstance in which an adult more than three years older than a child under 18 (but older than 14) *358could conceivably have sexual relations with that child and escape the reach of § 76-5-406(11) would be in situations in which the child took the lead in instigating the encounter, i.e., when the adult is seduced.

. In so stating, I do not criticize that opinion, in which I concurred. The facts in that case were simply so egregious that it was unnecessary to test the outer limit of the term "entice," as we must do in the instant case.

. As an isolated occurrence, this incident seems more a matter of social courtesy than as indicative of a course of predatory conduct. Moreover, it is unclear whether defendant bought the suit for A.A. before or after the night in question, as the testimony of A.A. and that of defendant's daughter conflict on this point.