State v. Almaguer
347 S.W.3d 636
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Almaguer was charged with three counts of enticement of a child and one count of patronizing prostitution; bench trial conducted.
- Officer Stewart posed as a fourteen-year-old girl in a chat room and interacted with Almaguer, who claimed to be thirty-five and engaged in sexually explicit chats with the decoy.
- From February to April 2008, Almaguer chatted with the decoy about sexual activities, invited her to view his webcam, and offered paid sexual acts.
- Almaguer expressed intent to travel from Springfield to Troy to meet the decoy for sexual conduct, including a plan to meet at Troy City Park and to use a Mustang for sexual activity.
- The day before a planned meeting, Almaguer canceled citing snowy roads; he never met the decoy; trial evidence included his statements during chats and his admission that he might be a pervert, but he never physically touched the decoy.
- Almaguer presented expert testimony arguing that internet chats can be role play, and the defense suggested weather data showed no planned meeting; the jury convicted on all counts and he was sentenced to concurrent terms (seven years for each enticement count, six months for patronizing prostitution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of a substantial step toward enticement | Almaguer argues no substantial step beyond chat communications. | Almaguer contends chats alone do not prove intent to engage in sexual conduct. | Evidence supported enticement; chats showed intent to meet for sexual conduct. |
| Whether evidence supports patronizing prostitution | State contends offering $10/hour for oral sex qualifies as patronizing prostitution. | Almaguer argues lack of credible proof of exchange or intent. | Evidence showed solicitation for sexual activity in return for value, sustaining conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fleis, 319 S.W.3d 504 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (sufficiency of evidence for enticement based on online communications and potential meetings)
- State v. Wadsworth, 203 S.W.3d 825 (Mo.App. S.D.2006) (communications describing sexual situations support enticement evidence)
- State v. Davies, 330 S.W.3d 775 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (no required meeting necessary to prove enticement; evidence supports elements)
- Gibbs, 306 S.W.3d 178 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (great deference to trial court credibility; view in light most favorable to verdict)
- State v. Ellis, 853 S.W.2d 440 (Mo.App. E.D.1993) (prostitution–value exchanged supports conviction)
- State v. Faruqi, 344 S.W.3d 193 (Mo. banc.2011) (statutory terminology issues; mislabeling of defenses is not dispositive)