Bolton v. State
310 Ga. App. 801
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Bolton was convicted of one count of computer pornography and child exploitation (online solicitation) under OCGA § 16-12-100.2(d)(1).
- An internet-crimes-against-children officer, posing as a minor, used the Adult Friend Finder site as 'Shelby' and later MSN chat as 'momusic36' to communicate with Bolton.
- Shelby disclosed she was 15 and sent a photo; Bolton questioned her age and exchanged sexually explicit messages, proposing a nighttime meeting and later a daytime meeting at Walmart.
- Bolton indicated he would meet at the Walmart garden area at 9:00 a.m., provided his cell number, and claimed to be an adult (variously described as 19 and previously as 40).
- Before the meeting, Bolton was observed driving to the Walmart, entered and left the store, and was taken into custody in the garden area; his phone call to Shelby matched the provided number.
- The indictment charged Bolton with using a computer online service to solicit or entice a person believed to be a child to engage in conduct that would constitute child molestation under OCGA § 16-6-4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for online solicitation | Bolton argues the State failed to prove the underlying child-molestation act. | Bolton contends no evidence showed admission of child molestation or its completion. | Evidence showed solicitation to a person believed to be a child for the purpose of child molestation; sufficient to sustain the offense. |
| Entrapment and ineffective assistance | Bolton asserts trial counsel should have requested an entrapment jury instruction. | Bolton maintains entrapment evidence was present requiring an instruction and that counsel was ineffective for not requesting it. | No entrapment evidence; no entitlement to a jury charge; counsel's failure was not deficient performance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Selfe v. State, 290 Ga.App. 857 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (distinguishes online solicitation scope when underlying molestation not established)
- Vines v. State, 269 Ga. 438 (Ga. 1998) (underlying crime element requirements for child molestation)
- Lasseter v. State, 197 Ga.App. 498 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990) (enticement for indecent purposes does not require completion of molestation)
- Jackson v. State, 274 Ga.App. 26 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (states enticement/solicitation elements and relevance of underlying purpose)
- Dennard v. State, 243 Ga.App. 868 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (recognizes OCGA § 16-12-100.2 creates new liability for computer-based sexual solicitations)