State v. Boespflug, 793 N.W.2d 774

Boespflug appealed a criminal judgment for corruption or solicitation of a minor and the court affirmed.
Boespflug texted S.B. offering payment for oral sex; S.B. stated he was a minor and in high school.
A deputy inadvertently forwarded a message; Boespflug sent another solicitation to S.B.
Boespflug proposed affirmative-defense jury instructions: belief S.B. was an adult; or belief S.B. was less than three years younger.
The district court denied the affirmative-defense instructions, ruling the three-year age difference instruction was not a defense and there was insufficient support for the adult-belief instruction.
Boespflug testified he believed S.B. was an adult; he was the only defense witness; the court later denied his Rule 29 motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for guilt	State argues competent evidence supported guilt.	Boespflug asserts failure to prove he knew S.B. was 17.	Sufficient competent evidence supported the verdict.
Three-year age difference as a defense	Three-year difference not a defense; statute requires willfulness and age gap.	Three-year difference should be a defense if reasonably believed; instruction requested.	Three-year age difference is not a defense; not required as instructed.

State v. Dahl, 2009 ND 204 (N.D. 2009) (set forth standard for sufficiency review of criminal convictions)
State v. Demarais, 2009 ND 143 (N.D. 2009) (concurs in standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Ness, 2009 ND 182 (N.D. 2009) (guides whether jury should be instructed on a defense if evidence creates reasonable doubt)
State v. White, 390 N.W.2d 43 (N.D. 1986) (distinguishes affirmative defense from defense; three-year rule not an affirmative defense)