State v. Johnson, 270 P.3d 591

Johnson was convicted by a jury of attempted promotion of commercial sexual abuse of a minor after a sting where undercover officers posed as 17-year-old girls.
The officers were actually adults in their mid to late 20s; the defense argued there was no actual minor victim and thus insufficient evidence.
Johnson engaged with the decoys, acknowledged their claimed ages, discussed working as a 'ho,' and sought to train them through one of his experienced girls.
The operation directed the decoys to solicit sexual transactions at a specified location; Johnson and Payton were arrested shortly after.
The jury was instructed on both the greater offense and a lesser included offense, and ultimately Johnson was convicted of the greater offense.
On appeal, Johnson argued lack of sufficiency because the victims were over 18, and the State relied on the perceived age of the decoys.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for intent and substantial step	Johnson	Johnson	Sufficient evidence; intended to advance/profit from exploitation and took a substantial step
Impossibility defense to criminal attempt	State	Johnson	Impossibility not a defense; rejected for attempted crimes against minors
Patel dictum and age of victim for attempt	Patel dictum supported conviction for fictitious minor	Patel dictum compels dismissal when victim is actually an adult	Patel dictum disapproved; does not prevent conviction where victim is fictitious; clarified that age is material to intent depending on actual vs fictitious victim
Role of victim's age in proving intent for base crime	State must prove defendant believed victim was under 18	Johnson	State must prove belief of minor as to the perceived victim; age is material to intent for attempted promotion of minor exploitation

State v. Dunbar, 117 Wn.2d 587 (1991) (impossibility cannot support attempt; distinguishes intent requirements)
State v. Chhom, 128 Wn.2d 739 (1995) (attempted rape of a child requires intent to have intercourse; strict liability aspects discussed)
Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666 (2002) (impossibility not a defense; sting with fictitious victim upheld on intent and substantial step)
Patel, 170 Wn.2d 476 (2010) (plurality allowed conviction for fictitious underage victim; dictum about actual-adult victim disapproved)
State v. DeRyke, 149 Wn.2d 906 (2003) (defines criminal result for base crimes and supports intent evaluation in attempt)
State v. Luther, 157 Wn.2d 63 (2006) (substantial step must strongly corroborate the defendant's criminal purpose)
State v. Keller, 143 Wn.2d 267 (2001) (statutory interpretation and sufficiency standards for evidence)
Association of Wash. Bus. v. Dept. of Revenue, 155 Wn.2d 430 (2005) (nonbinding dicta and precedent about statutory interpretation considerations)