Shaffer v. State, 2011 Miss. LEXIS 519

Shaffer was convicted of exploitation of a child for soliciting sex from someone he believed to be thirteen; sting operator posed as 13-year-old 'Chloe' and met him at a church in Mississippi; no actual child was involved in the sting; Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for sentencing on attempted exploitation; Shaffer petitioned for certiorari which the Supreme Court granted; the Court held solicitation violates the statute regardless of the actual existence of a child and rejected the attempted-exploitation theory; conviction and sentence were reinstated and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does soliciting sex from someone who the defendant believes is a minor violate the child-exploitation statute even when no actual minor is involved?	Shaffer: no actual child involved means no crime.	State: solicitation to meet a minor suffices under statute.	Yes; solicitation of a minor, even if no minor exists, violates the statute.
Is there a separate crime of attempted exploitation of a child under the statute?	Shaffer: the offense charged was exploitation, not attempted exploitation.	State: could have proceeded on an attempted-offense theory.	The Court rejects a standalone 'attempted exploitation' for the charged facts; affirmation of exploitation conviction and rejection of direct-remand to attempted-exploitation.
Did the indictment sufficiently charge exploitation of a child as defined by §97-5-33(6)?	Shaffer: indictment improperly charged a minor; data showed adult complainants.	State: charged the statutory elements of exploitations including a 'child' under eighteen.	Indictment failed to prove element of a real child under eighteen; reversed as to Count I in Kitchens’ view, but majority reinstates conviction under the statutory interpretation that solicitation itself constitutes exploitation.

United States v. Farner, 251 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2001) (conviction for attempting to entice a minor upheld where defendant believed minor existed)
State v. Coonrod, 652 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (sting operations do not require actual minor involvement)
Shields v. State, 722 So.2d 584 (Miss. 1998) (direct-remand rule does not apply to all cases of lesser offenses)
Mason v. State, 430 So.2d 857 (Miss. 1983) (attempt is separate and distinct from completed crime; essential elements differ)
Coleman v. State, 947 So.2d 878 (Miss. 2006) (strict statutory construction; elements defined by statute)
McLamb v. State, 456 So.2d 743 (Miss. 1984) (statutes construed liberally in favor of the accused)
Gilmer v. State, 955 So.2d 829 (Miss. 2007) (court cautions against expanding statutory meaning without clear language)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies to elements of crime)