Massachusetts Appeals Court
March 15, 2011
Docket No. 10-P-117
The defendant was convicted of enticement of a child under sixteen in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 26C(b). On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. The Appeals Court affirmed.
Facts
The defendant admitted to engaging in online chats with an individual identified by screen name “colinnh14.” The two had sexually explicit chats and arranged to meet. Though defendant believed a fourteen-year-old boy used the screen name, it was actually used by a New Hampshire police officer. The officer was working with a Massachusetts police department to investigate reports of an adult male chatting online with minors in a sexually explicit manner. Police identified the defendant through internet protocol addresses and, upon the execution of a search warrant, recovered the computers used in the chats.
Discussion
Issue 1: Did the defendant demonstrate specific intent to violate the crime of child enticement by establishing his wish to meet and establishing a tentative plan to engage in a prohibited act?
The crime of child enticement (G. L. c. 265, § 26C(b)) requires four elements, one of which is the “intent that he or another person will violate [one of the enumerated statutes] or any offense that has as an element the use or attempted use of force.” According to Commonwealth v. Disler, '[T]he crime of child enticement is complete when an individual, possessing the requisite criminal intent . . . employs words, gestures, or other means to entice (or lure, induce, persuade) someone who is under the age of sixteen, or whom the actor believes is under the age of sixteen, to enter or remain in a vehicle, dwelling, building, or outdoor space.'. (451 Mass. 216, 222 (2008))
The Appeals Court agreed with the trial court and found that the defendant did demonstrate specific intent. Defendant completed the crime by discussing a meeting place and time with 'colinnh14.' The plan to discuss the details of their meeting further does not show a lack of intent to commit the underlying crime.
Issue 2: Did the incorrect date on the indictment mean there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction?
The Appeals Court found no merit in the defendant's argument that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction because of an incorrect date on the indictment. The elements of the crime were correctly stated, without prejudice, and the date of the enticement was not an essential element of the crime. The defendant admitted to having the conversations with 'colinnh14,' and therefore suffered no prejudice from the incorrect date.
Prepared by DFK
