State v. Lewis, 292 Or. App. 1

Detective Burroughs (undercover) posted an escort-style ad on Backpage purporting to be “Sam,” stating she was 17 (post also listed age as 18) and provided a phone number.
Defendant responded by text, negotiated payment, asked for pictures, and arranged an in-person meeting; messages included sexual-transaction language (price, "GFE," condoms, coke).
After several texts and confirming logistics, Burroughs (posing as Sam) texted "You only turn 15 once" and otherwise indicated Sam was a minor; defendant then asked if he could come over and arrived at the address, where he was arrested.
Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal at trial arguing the state failed to prove he "solicit[ed]" a child because plans for sexual contact predated his knowledge of Sam’s minority and, after learning her age, he merely passively acquiesced.
Trial court denied the motion; a jury convicted defendant of first-degree online sexual corruption of a child (ORS 163.433). Defendant appealed challenging statutory meaning of "solicit."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant "solicit[ed]" a child via online communication under ORS 163.432(1) and ORS 163.431(5)	State: Text messages after defendant knew the minor’s age asking to come over and confirming meeting were requests to engage in sexual contact — i.e., solicitations.	Defendant: "Solicit" requires affirmative outreach to seek sexual contact with a minor; here the sexual arrangement was made before he knew the age, and after learning it he only passively acquiesced.	Court: "Solicit" includes requests like "Can I head over?" and "I'm good to come over now?" — those messages after learning age suffice for solicitation; conviction affirmed.

State v. Holsclaw, 286 Or. App. 790 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) (standard for reviewing statutory construction and sufficiency of evidence challenge)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (Or. 2009) (court explains approach to statutory text and context)