People v. Korwin, 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 763

Korwin posted an online ad seeking a younger female; an undercover law‑enforcement agent posed as a 13–14 year‑old and responded.
Over ~4.5–5 months Korwin exchanged primarily sexual messages with the agent, asked about pubertal development, gave sexual instructions, and discussed meeting and taking suggestive/naked photos.
The agent sent an age‑regressed photo; Korwin sent photos of himself and stated he was a high‑school teacher and had crushes on students.
Korwin arranged a meeting at a restaurant and arrived with cameras, condoms, multiple phones, and women’s underwear; he was arrested there.
A jury convicted Korwin of (1) attempting a lewd act on a child (§ 288(c)(1)), (2) contacting a minor with knowledge and intent to commit a sexual offense (§ 288.3(a)), and (3) meeting with a minor for lewd purposes (§ 288.4(b)); appeal challenges only the § 288.3(a) conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 288.3(a) requires an actual minor victim	Prosecution: statute criminalizes contacting a person who the defendant knows or reasonably should know is a minor; conviction valid based on Korwin's intent and belief	Korwin: statute requires the contacted person actually be a minor; his mistaken belief is insufficient	Court: conviction upheld—statute criminalizes attempt to contact a minor when defendant knows or should know victim is under 18; actual minor not required

People v. Rojas, 55 Cal.2d 252 (distinguishing statutes that require actual condition of property from attempt statutes)
People v. Shields, 23 Cal.App.5th 1242 (discussing human trafficking statute lacking knowledge element; contrasted with § 288.3)
Hatch v. Superior Court, 80 Cal.App.4th 170 (lack of actual minor not a defense to attempt to commit sex offenses against minors)
People v. Reed, 53 Cal.App.4th 389 (factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt where defendant intended to commit offense against a minor)
People v. Gallegos, 39 Cal.App.3d 512 (rejecting requirement for separate attempt charge where statute itself criminalizes attempt)
People v. Cornett, 53 Cal.4th 1261 (rule of lenity not applied where legislative intent is discernible)
People v. Brooks, 3 Cal.5th 1 (standards for sufficiency of evidence review)