People v. Naranjo CA4/2, E081983

Albert Jonathan Naranjo was convicted by a jury of several offenses, including attempted lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under 14 (Cal. Penal Code § 288(a), 664).
The conviction stemmed from an undercover operation where a police sergeant posed as a father ("Mike") offering his fictional 12-year-old daughter ("Destiny") for sexual exploitation via a Craigslist ad.
Naranjo responded to the ad, indicated willingness to engage in sexual activity with the purported minor, negotiated payment, requested explicit photos, and discussed meeting logistics; he brought the agreed-upon $100 to a public location for the arranged meeting.
At the appointed time and place (a Taco Bell parking lot), police arrested Naranjo; his stated defense at trial was that he intended to confront or harm the supposed abuser, not commit the crime charged.
On appeal, Naranjo challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for attempted lewd acts, arguing his actions were merely preparatory and his intent was equivocal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for attempt under § 288(a)	Naranjo intended and took direct steps toward the offense	Acts were merely preparatory; intent was equivocal; no payment or meeting occurred	Evidence sufficiently supports conviction for attempt
Definition of direct but ineffectual step	Arriving with money and intent at agreed time/location suffices	No element of underlying crime committed beyond preparation	Presence and conduct surpassed mere preparation
Interpretation of communications and actions	Communications displayed clear criminal intent	Explicit messages were false, aimed at exposing or stopping the supposed molester	Jury could reasonably find intent from communications
Challenge to intent finding	Naranjo’s intent "plainly shown" by conduct and words	Claimed he intended to harm, not abuse, and doubted minor's existence	Strong evidence of intent justified conviction

People v. Davis, 46 Cal.4th 539 (Cal. 2009) (clarifies requirements for attempt under § 288(a); intent plus a direct but ineffectual step needed)
People v. Dillon, 34 Cal.3d 441 (Cal. 1983) (slight acts suffice for attempt where intent is clear)
People v. Memro, 38 Cal.3d 658 (Cal. 1985) (attempt does not require last proximate act, only direct and unequivocal steps where intent is clear)
People v. Reed, 53 Cal.App.4th 389 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (mere preparation is insufficient for attempt)