Harris v. State, 107 So. 3d 1075

Harris challenged a conviction under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33(6) for exploiting a child by enticing, inducing, or soliciting a child to meet for sexually explicit conduct.
Harris admitted sending late-night text messages to his girlfriend Teresa Gregory’s fourteen-year-old daughter expressing sexual attraction and a desire to touch her.
At trial Harris was inside the daughter’s residence, down the hall from her bedroom, when sending the messages.
The daughter testified the messages described sexual interest and requests to touch, and Harris instructed her to erase them; she did not erase but reported them.
A jury found Harris guilty after trial; sentence was twenty years with ten years to serve and ten suspended, plus fines and sex-offender registration; Harris appealed arguing insufficiency of evidence.
The court denied Harris’s motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and Harris appeals on sufficiency grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there sufficient evidence of enticement or solicitation?	State contends the texts and proximity prove enticement or solicitation.	Harris argues the messages do not prove an attempt to meet for sexual conduct.	Yes; sufficient evidence supports enticement or solicitation.
Does solicitation alone violate the statute without a completed meeting?	State relies on jurisprudence that solicitation suffices to violate the statute.	Harris contends a meeting or explicit act is required.	Solicitation alone can violate the statute.
Did Harris knowingly target a child and intend to exploit her?	State emphasizes Harris knew the target was a minor and expressed explicit sexual intent.	Harris argues lack of proven intent to meet for sexual activity.	Yes; knowledge of minor status and intent to exploit were shown.
Was the evidence sufficient given the context and timing of the messages?	State points to late-night, close proximity, and explicit content as showing intent.	Harris notes lack of actual meeting and contested intent.	Yes; evidence reasonably supports the conviction.

Shanklin v. State, 290 So.2d 625 (Miss.1974) (fact finder may infer intent from surrounding circumstances)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S.1979) (sufficiency review requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
Schaffer v. State, 72 So.3d 1070 (Miss.2011) (solicitation suffices to violate 97-5-33(6) regardless of meeting)
Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss.2005) (standard for reviewing denial of directed verdict/JNOV)
Farrington v. State, 161 N.H.440, 20 A.3d 291 (N.H.2011) (text supporting view that solicitation can violate child-exploitation statute)