Interest of L.D.M., 2011 ND 25

Boespflug sent multiple text messages soliciting sexual acts from S.B., who stated she was a minor in high school.
A deputy inadvertently forwarded a prior message to Boespflug, who then again texted S.B. with a sexual proposition.
S.B.’s parents reported the conduct to the Sheriff; text messages and timing were documented at trial.
Boespflug admitted sending the messages but testified he believed S.B. was an adult.
The district court denied Boespflug’s requests for affirmative-defense jury instructions, including a three-year age-difference defense, and the State’s case proceeded.
The jury found Boespflug guilty of corruption or solicitation of a minor; the district court denied a Rule 29 motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Boespflug’s knowledge of S.B.’s minor status was not proven.	State failed to prove an essential element beyond reasonable doubt.	Sufficient evidence supported guilt.
Affirmative-defense instructions	Reasonable-belief adult instruction properly denied; no three-year defense allowed.	Three-year age-difference should be available as a defense.	Three-year difference is not an affirmative defense and not applicable.
Age-difference as element vs. defense	Three-year age difference is a defined element; must be proven by State.	Reasonableness of age belief could negate criminality under an affirmative-defense framework.	Three-year requirement is an element, not a defense; defendant’s belief irrelevant to that element.

State v. Dahl, 2009 ND 204 (ND 2009) (very limited appellate review of sufficiency; need competent evidence to prove guilt)
State v. Demarais, 2009 ND 143 (ND 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Ness, 2009 ND 182 (ND 2009) (jury instructions reviewed as a whole for applicable law)
State v. White, 390 N.W.2d 43 (ND 1986) (distinction between affirmative defense and defense; three-year-age rule not affirmative defense)