State v. Davison, State v. Heily, State v. Janke
2017 ND 188
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Three defendants (Davison, Heily, Janke) were arrested in a multi-agency Craigslist sting targeting persons seeking to pay for sex with minors.
- Undercover officers posed as minors; no actual minors were involved.
- Each defendant communicated about sexual acts and payment, then arrived at a hotel location where they were arrested.
- Defendants waived jury trials and submitted stipulated facts including statements that the undercover represented herself as under 18 and that defendants intended to pay for sex with a minor.
- District court denied Rule 29 motions for judgment of acquittal and convicted each defendant under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-41-06(1)(a) (patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity).
- Defendants appealed, arguing the statute requires the actual presence of a minor; the State argued the statute criminalizes agreements with another person made with intent to procure sexual activity with a minor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.D.C.C. § 12.1-41-06(1)(a) requires the presence of an actual minor | Statute does not require an actual minor; conviction can rest on agreement/offering to another person when intent is to procure a minor | Statute requires an actual minor; absence of a minor defeats the charge (no completed crime) | The statute does not require an actual minor; convictions affirmed |
| Whether stipulated evidence suffices to deny Rule 29 motions | Stipulations showed intent and conduct (offer/agree to pay, travel to location) sufficient for conviction | Lack of a minor means insufficient evidence as a matter of law | Viewing evidence in favor of verdict, competent evidence supported convictions |
| Whether Backlund or other authority mandates presence of a minor | State: Backlund interprets a different statute amended to criminalize belief a person was a minor; not controlling here | Defendants: Backlund suggests similar interpretive approach, so no conviction without a real minor | Backlund is distinguishable; N.D.C.C. § 12.1-41-06(1)(a) expressly criminalizes offers to "a minor or another person" |
| Whether statutory purpose supports convicting undercover-initiated stings | State: statute (from Uniform Act) targets patrons who intentionally seek minors; applies to those who deal with intermediaries or believed minors | Defendants: applying statute absent actual minor exceeds statute's scope | Court applied plain language and Uniform Act purpose to uphold convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Backlund, 672 N.W.2d 431 (2003) (interpreting luring statute amendment referencing belief the person was a minor)
- State v. Evans, 838 N.W.2d 605 (2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on Rule 29)
- Dominguez v. State, 840 N.W.2d 596 (2013) (statutory interpretation: plain meaning and practical construction)
- State v. Brown, 771 N.W.2d 267 (2009) (statutory interpretation is a question of law, fully reviewable on appeal)