Background

• Hart offered two neighborhood boys rides to school on two separate mornings; first offer Feb 28 was declined, second offer Mar 2 was also declined; no additional inducement or directive accompanying the offers; the trials led to convictions for attempted luring under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2910; judge acquitted on stalking/harassment but convicted on all four counts of attempted luring solely on the offers of rides; Superior Court affirmed; Commonwealth sought Supreme Court review framed around whether offering a ride alone constitutes luring; Court to interpret § 2910 and examine Adamo and Figueroa decisions.
• Hart was charged with four counts of attempted luring; trial court found no intent to harm but still convicted; on appeal, Hart argued the bare offer of a ride without parent/guardian consent or additional enticement cannot constitute luring; the issue framed for review was whether an offer to ride a child, without parental permission, may be convicted of luring under § 2910.
• The majority ultimately held that mere offers of a ride, standing alone, do not meet the definition of a “lure” under § 2910; an attempt to lure requires an enticement or inducement beyond the offer itself, or an explicit directive that would coerce entry; the court rejected the expansive Figueroa interpretation and disapproved Adamo’s emphasized notion that any invitation suffices; Hart’s conviction reversed and he discharged.
• The Court reaffirmed that § 2910 is a penal statute to be strictly construed and that the plain meaning governs; it rejected creating a broad, policy-driven interpretation that would criminalize innocent Good Samaritan offers without parental consent; the decision aligns with Tate, which prompted legislative amendments to restrict luring to acts involving an inducement or structure.
• The decision notes that Megan’s Law consequences attach to § 2910 violations, but emphasizes the need for clear statutory boundaries to avoid criminalizing well-intentioned conduct.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Commonwealth v. Adamo, 431 Pa. Super. 529, 637 A.2d 302 (Pa. Super. 1994) (held mere invitation to ride by a friend is not a lure absent inducement)
• Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 648 A.2d 557 (Pa. Super. 1994) (adopts broader view that lure can be invitation with weather/conditions as inducement; discusses mens rea under § 2910)
• Commonwealth v. Tate, 572 Pa. 411, 816 A.2d 1097 (Pa. 2003) (held plain meaning of § 2910 did not include attempt to lure a child into a vehicle; prompted statutory amendments)