Logan v. State
309 Ga. App. 95
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Logan was convicted after a jury trial of selling sexual content and soliciting a minor via the internet, plus attempted aggravated child molestation and attempted child molestation.
- An ICAC task force operator posed as a 14-year-old girl on Craigslist and through electronic communications Logan expressed explicit sexual interest and described acts.
- Logan traveled to Elise Holmes Park in a park according to the undercover plan and arrived with a condom in his possession.
- Officers stopped Logan at the park and advised him of the task force presence; Logan claimed he was there to counsel a 14-year-old about online dating dangers.
- Evidence included Logan’s emails, text exchanges, a thumbnail photo, vehicle cellphone, and a condom found in Logan’s possession.
- Logan raised multiple issues on appeal, including entrapment, ineffective assistance, suppression, sufficiency of the solicitation evidence, illegal stop, and plea-bargaining concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrapment defense viability | Logan's entrapment defense should have barred conviction. | State induced Logan; Logan not predisposed; entrapment should apply. | No entrapment; sufficient predisposition; entrapment not proven. |
| Ineffective assistance for not raising entrapment | Counsel's failure to raise entrapment was deficient. | No deficiency; evidence did not compel entrapment. | No ineffective assistance; no duty to raise entrapment absent demand for verdict. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of solicitation/attempted offenses | Logan took substantial steps toward molestation and enticement. | Evidence insufficient to prove solicitation and enticement. | Sufficient evidence Logan took substantial steps and enticed meeting. |
| Legality of stop and interrogation | Stop and interrogation violated Logan’s rights. | Stop based on reasonable suspicion; statements voluntary; Miranda complied. | Stop and statements admissible; no Miranda violation; proper suppression ruling. |
| Plea bargaining affecting jury trial rights | Plea bargain pressure violated right to jury trial. | Rana v. State controls; no merit to claim. | No error; claim rejected as in Rana. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Jean v. State, 255 Ga.App. 129 (2002) (entrapment framework; determine predisposition and inducement)
- Robinson v. State, 308 Ga.App. 45 (2011) (ineffective assistance standard; meritless motion cannot prove prejudice)
- Smith v. State, 262 Ga.App. 614 (2003) (on-scene stop and Miranda considerations; admissibility of spontaneous statements)
- Lopez v. State, 285 Ga.App. 355 (2007) (definition of interrogation and when rights attach)
- Dennard v. State, 243 Ga.App. 868 (2000) (use of evidence to show predisposition and entrapment analysis)