511 P.3d 1191
Utah Ct. App.2022Background
- An ICAC agent posed online as a 13-year-old girl (“Kailey”), creating a dating-app profile that listed age as 18 and used a close-up photo of an adult woman. The agent promptly told chat partners Kailey was 13 once conversation began.
- Timothy Dickerson (as “Lavell”) contacted Kailey, learned she was 13, obtained her phone number, and carried on a multi-hour text exchange in which he repeatedly solicited meeting, asked for her address, and proposed/explicitly described sexual acts.
- Dickerson arrived at the arranged meeting place and was arrested; a search of his car produced drug paraphernalia and a new pack of condoms.
- He was charged with enticement of a minor, attempted sodomy on a child, and drug offenses. He moved to dismiss alleging entrapment; the district court dismissed the sexual charges but denied dismissal of the drug charges.
- The State appealed. The appellate court addressed jurisdiction (interlocutory appeal), concluded the court had jurisdiction, and reviewed whether entrapment was established as a matter of law.
- The court held that entrapment was not established as a matter of law because the record showed Dickerson actively and persistently pursued the sexual encounter despite opportunities to desist; therefore the dismissal of the sexual charges was reversed and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over State’s appeal | State: interlocutory appeal under entrapment statute was proper; direct-appeal concession moot | Dickerson: district order not final; interlocutory petition granted without required response -> procedurally defective | Court: granted interlocutory appeal; procedural omission harmless; jurisdiction exists for interlocutory appeal |
| Whether entrapment was established as a matter of law | State: district court erred; evidence permits jury to decide entrapment | Dickerson: agent’s tactics (adult-certified profile, adult photo, agent-directed sexual talk) created substantial risk of ensnaring one not otherwise ready to offend | Court: reversed dismissal; reasonable minds could differ; defendant actively pursued and persisted, agent did not employ coercive/personal inducements sufficient to establish entrapment as a matter of law; submit defense to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Taylor, 599 P.2d 496 (Utah 1979) (adopts objective entrapment test focusing on police conduct rather than defendant predisposition)
- State v. Torres, 16 P.3d 1242 (Utah 2000) (identifies two categories where entrapment as matter of law is shown: persistent pressure and appeals to sympathy/large inducements)
- State v. Kourbelas, 621 P.2d 1238 (Utah 1980) (undercover agent’s repeated renewals and calls constituted persistent inducement)
- State v. Kaufman, 734 P.2d 465 (Utah 1987) (entrapment where agent exploited a personal relationship and appeals to sympathy)
- State v. Hernandez, 462 P.3d 1283 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (mere provision of opportunity by officer insufficient; courts must assess whether a reasonable jury could find voluntary criminal intent)
- State v. Hatchett, 462 P.3d 1288 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (denial of pretrial entrapment dismissal affirmed where defendant aggressively pursued undercover despite knowledge of youth)
- Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (U.S. 1958) (Frankfurter concurring opinion discussing limits on exploiting vulnerability and sympathy in inducement)