Narrative Opinion Summary
Defendant appeals a conviction for first-degree online sexual corruption of a child under ORS 163.433, raising three assignments of error, but only the first is addressed in detail. The court affirms the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant argues that he did not "solicit" a child as defined by the relevant statutes, claiming he did not "affirmatively seek out sexual contact" with a child. However, referencing State v. Lewis, the court explains that similar circumstances involved the defendant using text messages to request sexual contact after being aware of the child's age, allowing for a reasonable conclusion that he solicited a child. The court finds the facts of this case materially indistinguishable from those in Lewis, thus upholding the trial court's decision. The judgment is affirmed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Precedent in Criminal Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applies the precedent from State v. Lewis to affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, finding the facts materially indistinguishable.
Reasoning: The court finds the facts of this case materially indistinguishable from those in Lewis, thus upholding the trial court's decision.
Interpretation of 'Solicitation' under ORS 163.433subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court interprets 'solicitation' to include situations where a defendant uses text messages to request sexual contact after knowing the child's age, aligning with the precedent set in State v. Lewis.
Reasoning: Defendant argues that he did not 'solicit' a child as defined by the relevant statutes, claiming he did not 'affirmatively seek out sexual contact' with a child. However, referencing State v. Lewis, the court explains that similar circumstances involved the defendant using text messages to request sexual contact after being aware of the child's age, allowing for a reasonable conclusion that he solicited a child.