People v. Gaciarz, 98 N.E.3d 406

Defendant replied to an online escort ad (“young … 18”) placed by Aurora PD as an undercover sting; ad did not mention a minor.
Text exchange between defendant and undercover officer (posing as a guardian) included: “i got a 14 yo blnd and 15 yo brunette,” defendant selected “Brunette,” and discussed sexual acts and condoms.
Defendant arrived at a hotel room with $150 and condoms; arrested after handing money to an agent playing the mother; no actual minors or photos of minors were used in the operation.
Hotel-room video recorded in four segments with gaps, including a 33-second gap during a key exchange; agent testified he did not know why gaps occurred; the “mother” testified about what occurred during gaps.
Trial court admitted the segmented video and the mother’s testimony about unrecorded portions; after a bench trial defendant was convicted of involuntary sexual servitude of a minor, traveling to meet a minor, and grooming; sentenced to 6 years (concurrent 2-year term for travel).
On appeal defendant argued (1) insufficient evidence because no actual/purported minor was used, (2) admission of incomplete video was erroneous, and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for not inspecting recording equipment. Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence / whether a nonexistent minor precludes conviction	State: Defendant’s texts (including “14 yo”/“15 yo”) plus travel and cash/condoms show he knowingly attempted commercial sex with a minor	Gaciarz: No actual or purported minor was used; thus essential element (minor) not proven	Court: Conviction upheld — defendant’s belief and substantial steps satisfy attempt/section elements; nonexistent minor is not insuperable obstacle
Admissibility of incomplete hotel-room video (33-sec gap)	State: Recorded segments accurately portray events; agent/mother available for cross-exam to explain gaps	Gaciarz: Gaps render recording untrustworthy and prejudice his defense/impeachment	Court: Admission discretionary; even if erroneous, any error was not substantially prejudicial given other convincing evidence (texts, travel, cash/condoms)
Ineffective assistance for failure to inspect recording equipment	State: No reasonable probability result would differ if camera inspected	Gaciarz: Counsel should have sought inspection to show gaps/alteration and undermine evidence	Court: Strickland not satisfied — no prejudice shown, so claim fails

United States v. Wolff, 796 F.3d 972 (8th Cir. 2015) (attempted sex trafficking conviction upheld where defendant believed victim was minor and took substantial steps)
United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2004) (mistaken belief that one is corresponding with a minor does not negate culpability for attempt)
United States v. Coté, 504 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2007) (government may prove attempt by showing defendant believed victim was a minor and took substantial steps)
People v. Scott, 318 Ill. App. 3d 46 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (attempt conviction sustained where defendant communicated with detective posing as a minor and arrived to meet him)
People v. Patterson, 314 Ill. App. 3d 962 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (attempted aggravated sexual abuse upheld when defendant arranged meeting with undercover posing as minor)
People v. Ruppenthal, 331 Ill. App. 3d 916 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (defendant’s belief that he was soliciting a minor is the culpable act even if recipient was adult detective)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237 (Ill. 1985) (adopts Jackson standard for Illinois sufficiency review)