State v. Elliott
127 Conn. App. 464
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Milford detective used online persona of a 14-year-old girl to identify adults seeking sexual contact with minors.
- Defendant Elliott contacted the decoy as a 37-year-old male in the adult chat room using the name Jerryatwork24.
- Over Aug. 2006–Jan. 2007, Elliott engaged Volleygirlct in six additional sexually graphic online conversations.
- Defendant repeatedly exposed his genitals via web cam and solicited sexual acts from Volleygirlct, who Elliott believed was under 16.
- In Oct. 2006, Volleygirlct sent what appeared to be a minor’s image (actually an undercover agent) to Elliott; he continued the explicit conduct.
- On Oct. 4 and Dec. 2, 2006, Elliott discussed meeting Volleygirlct for sex; surveillance was arranged at a coffee shop but never occurred.
- April 13, 2007, police executed warrants; Elliott waived Miranda rights and admitted the Yahoo chat identity and sending conversations and webcam images.
- Trial occurred Oct. 28–29, 2008; Elliott was convicted of attempt to commit risk of injury to a child and attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity.
- Sentence was ten years with five years to serve, followed by three years’ probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 53-21(a)(1) is vague as applied to Elliott | State argues statute provides sufficient notice. | Elliott contends absence of explicit prohibition for online exposure. | Not unconstitutionally vague as applied. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempt to commit risk of injury to a child | State contends webcam evidence and timing show intent. | Elliott argues online setting cannot meet risk of injury element. | Sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity | State asserts enticement need only persuade, not succeed. | Elliott maintains no actual meeting occurred. | Sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thomas W., 115 Conn.App. 467, 974 A.2d 19 (2009) (re risk of injury to a child standard and presence of general intent crime)
- State v. Aziegbemi, 111 Conn.App. 259, 959 A.2d 1 (2008) (risk of injury is a general intent crime; no requirement of awareness of minor)
- State v. Stuart, 113 Conn.App. 541, 967 A.2d 532 (2009) (notice and certainty in vagueness analysis; ordinary intelligence)
- State v. Cutro, 37 Conn.App. 534, 657 A.2d 239 (1995) (online/offline conduct and risk of injury)
- State v. Erzen, 29 Conn.App. 591, 617 A.2d 177 (1992) (exposure to minors violates § 53-21(a)(1))
- State v. Edwin M., 124 Conn.App. 707, 6 A.3d 124 (2010) (sufficiency review and standard)