Sex encounters north dakota

Added: Kasie Persinger - Date: 24.04.2022 17:49 - Views: 26772 - Clicks: 4655

In North Dakota, an adult is guilty of patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity when: 1 with the intent to engage in commercial sexual activity with a minor; 2 the individual gives, agrees to give, or offers to give anything of value to a minor or another person; and 3 for the purpose of obtaining commercial sexual activity with a minor.

Nicholas Davison, James Heily, Jr. The Defendants were each arrested as part of a multi-agency sting operation targeted at apprehending individuals paying, or attempting to pay, for sex with minors. The sting operation posted advertisements on the Internet, specifically in the "Casual Encounters" section of "Craigslist. However, during communications with each of the Defendants, an undercover officer posing as a minor indicated to the Defendants she was a minor. In each of the communications, there were discussions of exchanging something of value for sexual services.

Each of the Defendants arrived at the sting location set up at a hotel in Fargo, and each was arrested and charged with patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity. On appeal, the Defendants argue the district court erred by denying their motions for judgment of acquittal. The Defendants argued N. The State argued N. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court properly denied Defendants' motions for judgment of acquittal.

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v.

Sex encounters north dakota

Nicholas John Davison, Defendant and Appellant. James Robert Heily Jr. Jesse Lee Janke, Defendant and Appellant. Opinion of the Court by Kapsner, Justice. Leah J. Charles J. Sheeley, Fargo, ND, for defendants and appellants. We affirm the criminal judgments. The sting operation posted advertisements on the Internet, specifically in the "Casual Encounters" section of a website called "Craigslist. Each of the Defendants arrived at the sting location set up at a hotel in Fargo, and each was arrested and charged with patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity in violation of N.

Davison asserted the language of the statute required an actual minor to be involved, and because the sting operation did not involve an actual minor, he could not be convicted of the crime as a matter of law.

Sex encounters north dakota

The State argued whether the sting operation had an actual minor present is irrelevant. Davison argued there was no completed crime absent the presence of a minor, and because the State did not charge an attempt crime, the charge should be dismissed. The district court found the State had established probable cause for the charge of patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity. The cases were tried on stipulated facts. The stipulated facts in each case contained the following essential facts:. On [a specific date], Defendant exchanged s and text messages with a female who had posted on Craigslist.

The female represented herself as under age 18 in one of the messages she sent to Defendant. The person representing as an underage female was an undercover officer. No one under the age of 18 was involved. Defendant intended to engage in a sexual act with the female knowing she was under the age of 18 and agreed to give the female [something of value] in exchange for the sex act. In each case, the stipulated facts indicated the Defendants had agreed to exchange money, drugs, or something of value for a sex act. The stipulated facts indicated the Defendants had either arrived at the hotel or had appeared and knocked on the hotel room door before being arrested.

Each stipulation of facts indicated: "Defendant and the female had discussed potential sex acts and the price of those acts prior to Defendant arriving at the hotel. The district court denied the motion in each case and found each of the Defendants guilty of patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity in violation of N. The Defendants filed notices of appeal to this Court. The Defendants argue N.

Because there was no minor involved in the Defendants' cases, the Defendants argue the State cannot meet its burden of proof. The State argues N. Therefore, the only question is one of statutory interpretation, which is a question of law and is fully reviewable on appeal. State v. This Court construes statutes "in a practical manner, giving consideration to the context of the statutes and the purpose for which they were enacted.

Section With the intent that an individual engage in commercial sexual activity with a minor, the person gives, agrees to give, or offers to give anything of value to a minor or another person so that the individual may engage in commercial sexual activity with a minor[.

The phrase "commercial sexual activity" appearing in N. The transaction, agreement, or offer must be made with the intent to receive, in exchange for some item of value, sexual activity with a minor.

Sex encounters north dakota

But the statute does not require the State to prove a minor was present. The statute requires proof of a person giving, agreeing to give, or offering "anything of value to a minor or another person" with intent to engage in commercial sexual activity with a minor, and with the expectation of receiving sexual services from a minor.

The stipulated facts indicate in each case a conversation occurred which showed the Defendants each possessed the necessary "intent. In each case, the Defendants discussed engaging in sex acts and paying for the sex acts with someone claiming to be a minor. In each case, the Defendants' intent was confirmed by an outward manifestation of that intent, such as driving to the location discussed with the agreed upon payment on their person.

Backlund, NDN. In Backlund, this Court was interpreting N. We noted the statute, as originally drafted, required the presence of a minor, but was amended during the legislative process to criminalize luring "a person the adult believes to be a minor. The Defendants argue because N. However, the statute criminalizes making an exchange of something of value, or offering to exchange something of value, with a minor "or another person" with the intent to engage in commercial sexual activity with a minor. The statute is aimed at apprehending those who intentionally seek to procure the commercial sexual services of a minor, whether such payment is made or offered directly to a minor or to another person.

Section 7 is directed toward reducing demand among patrons for commercial sexual activity with minors by raising the penalty level in existing state statutes to reflect the gravity of the offense. Subsection a 1 is a specific intent crime and therefore carries a higher range of punishment than subsection a 2which is a strict liability offense. Subsection 7 a 1 focuses on the worst predators, those who intentionally seek out children as their sexual objects[. The comments note, "Minnesota has a similar law for patrons who intentionally hire minors to engage in prostitution.

See Minn. The language of the statute in that case provides: "Whoever intentionally. While similar in the sense both statutes criminalize paying for sex with minors, the language of Minn. This construction interprets the statute in a practical manner, giving consideration to the context of the statute and the purpose for which it was enacted. This construction also targets those who intentionally seek out children as their sexual objects, as provided in the comments to Section 7 of the Uniform Act on Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

Because we hold N. We conclude the district court properly denied the Defendants' motions for judgment of acquittal. Crothers Jerod E. Tufte Gerald W. VandeWalle, C. North Dakota v. Davison Annotate this Case. Justia Opinion Summary In North Dakota, an adult is guilty of patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity when: 1 with the intent to engage in commercial sexual activity with a minor; 2 the individual gives, agrees to give, or offers to give anything of value to a minor or another person; and 3 for the purpose of obtaining commercial sexual activity with a minor.

Court Description: Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal. Words in a statute are given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, unless they are defined by statute or unless a contrary intention plainly appears.

Sex encounters north dakota

An adult is guilty of patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity when 1 with the intent to engage in commercial sexual activity with a minor; 2 the individual gives, agrees to give, or offers to give anything of value to a minor or another person; and 3 for the purpose of obtaining commercial sexual activity with a minor.

Davison; State v. Heily; State v. The stipulated facts in each case contained the following essential facts: On [a specific date], Defendant exchanged s and text messages with a female who had posted on Craigslist. The comments to Section 7 of the Uniform Act on Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking state: Section 7 is directed toward reducing demand among patrons for commercial sexual activity with minors by raising the penalty level in existing state statutes to reflect the gravity of the offense. Justia Legal Resources. Find a Lawyer.

Sex encounters north dakota

Law Students. US Federal Law. US State Law. Other Databases. Marketing Solutions.

Sex encounters north dakota

email: [email protected] - phone:(613) 421-3614 x 2858

Three Grand Forks men arrested for allegedly attempting to hire another person for sexual activity