Stoltz v. Commonwealth, 831 S.E.2d 164

Stoltz was convicted under Va. Code § 18.2-374.3(C) for using the Internet to solicit what he had "reason to believe" was a child under 15.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals found Stoltz had abandoned any facial-challenge argument at oral argument and treated his challenge as as-applied; Stoltz did not assign error to that finding on further appeal.
Stoltz contended the statute is unconstitutionally vague (void-for-vagueness) because of the phrase "knows or has reason to believe," and overbroad under the First Amendment.
The record contained explicit communications in which "Annie" told Stoltz she was 13, off school, home alone, and sent a picture; the jury heard the communications and witness testimony.
The trial court, at Stoltz's request, instructed the jury on the concept of "reason" to believe; the Court of Appeals and high court examined both facial and as-applied arguments but ultimately affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Vagueness (void-for-vagueness)	"Reason to believe" is too vague to give fair notice and permits arbitrary enforcement	Phrase is clear; similar language has been upheld and appears across statutes	Statute is not unconstitutionally vague; ordinary people can understand "knows or has reason to believe"
Overbreadth (First Amendment)	Statute chills protected speech because it uses communicative means (internet)	Statute regulates conduct (use of communications system to solicit minors), not protected speech; any incidental speech is not substantial relative to legitimate sweep	Facial overbreadth challenge fails; statute targets conduct and does not sweep a substantial amount of protected speech
Assignment of error / procedural abandonment	Stoltz says he did not abandon facial challenge	Court of Appeals found abandonment; Stoltz did not assign error to that finding on appeal	Court enforces assignment-of-error rule; assumes both theories for argument's sake but notes Stoltz failed to press assignment properly
Application to facts: sufficiency of "reason to believe"	Stoltz argues he did not actually know Annie's age	Commonwealth points to messages stating "13," being home alone, photo, and context showing reason to believe	Evidence established Stoltz had reason to believe Annie was under 15; when he gained that reason the criminal prohibition attached

Forest Lakes Cmty. Ass'n v. United Land Corp. of Am., 293 Va. 113 (Va. 2017) (assignment-of-error requirements explained)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial-challenge standard explained)
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (void-for-vagueness doctrine principles)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (vagueness limits and degree-based lines)
Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974) (statute devoid of any standard offends due process)
Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) (mens rea and knowledge of facts requirement)
Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) (statute void for vagueness if ordinary people must guess its meaning)
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) (overbreadth doctrine as last resort; conduct vs. speech)
Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949) (conduct may be criminal even if partly expressed by speech)
Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941) (use of "intent or reason to believe" in mens rea contexts)