COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Walter J. HART, III, Appellant.
28 A.3d 898
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued March 8, 2011. Decided Sept. 28, 2011.
531
George Michael Green, Delaware County District Attorney‘s Office, Jay William Hannon, Andrew S. Kovach, Media, Delaware County District Attorney‘s Office, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
BEFORE: CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, ORIE MELVIN, JJ.
OPINION
Justice TODD.
In this appeal, we consider whether the mere offer of an automobile ride to a child constitutes an attempt to “lure” the child under Section 2910 of Pennsylvania‘s Criminal Code, entitled “Luring a child into a motor vehicle or structure.”1 After careful review, we conclude that an attempt to “lure” does not include the action of simply extending an offer of an automobile ride to a child, when it is unaccompanied by any other enticement or inducement for the child to enter the motor vehicle. Consequently, we reverse the conviction of Appellant, Walter J. Hart III, for attempted luring.
The following facts were adduced at Appellant‘s trial. In early 2006, Appellant, then 35-years-of-age, was residing in a residential neighborhood in Haverford Township, Delaware County, where he had lived his entire life. Appellant was
Two days later, on the morning of March 2, 2006, a light rain was falling in the Haverford area, and the same two boys were again walking to school. Id. at 39. Appellant testified that between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m. that morning, he left home in his truck with the intention of getting coffee and breakfast at the WAWA grocery store before beginning a research project for his college public speaking class at the library. Id. at 108-109, 115. As Appellant approached the heavily congested intersection of Naylor‘s Run Road and Manoa Road, he recalled observing the two boys standing near the intersection, and, according to Appellant, because of their age and the fact they were carrying backpacks, he believed they were from his neighborhood and on their way to school. Appellant related that, because it had been raining, he offered them a ride to school, or, alternatively, at least as far as the grocery store at which he intended to stop. Id. at 112-113. In Appellant‘s view, since he was going in the direction of the school anyway, he thought he was merely doing a “kind thing” by making the
Both boys recounted that they turned down Appellant‘s offer of a ride—after which Appellant аsked if they were sure. Id. at 20. The boys declined for a second time, and Appellant drove off without any further communication with them. Id. at 20, 38. Appellant proceeded to the grocery store, then to the library, and finally returned home, at which point he began working on other school assignments. Id. at 115-117.
Following their latest interaction with Appellant, one of the boys obtained the license plate number of Appellant‘s truck; whereupon they both walked to the police station, which was located less than a block from where they had spoken with Appellant, and reported the conversation to police. Id. at 40, 43, 59. Later that same morning, after determining Appellant‘s address from the license plate information, a Haverford Township police officer, Thomas Long, drove to Appellant‘s house, and spoke with Appellant. Id. at 52. According to Officer Long, Appellant did not appear to have any knowledge of why the officer was questioning him. Id. at 60. Appellant admitted to Officer Long that he offered the two boys a ride, and Appellant voluntarily agreed to Officer Long‘s request to accompany him to the police station to speak further with another investigator. Id. at 56.
Once at the Haverford Township police station, Appellant spoke with Officer Goodman and repeated what he told Officer Long. Appellant agreed to memorialize this statement in writing, and he handwrote the following: “Two boys walking to school, and I asked if wanted [sic] a ride part of the way, Wawa. Boys said no. I said okay, and left.” Id. at 70.
Appellant subsequently was charged with four counts of harassment, stalking, and attempted luring of a child into a motor vehicle. After receiving a telephone call informing him of the charges, Appellant turned himself in. He proceeded to a bench trial before the Honorable Ann A. Osborne on September 26, 2007. At the conclusion of the trial, Judge Osborne acquitted Appellant of the offenses of stalking and harassment. With respect to the offenses of attempted luring of a child into a motor vehicle, Judge Osborne expressly stated she found no evidence that Appellant had any intent to harm the children, and that she believed “the circumstances show no reason to believe that this defendant had any evil or improper intent in doing what he did.” N.T. Trial, 10/2/07, at 4-5. However, on the sole basis of Appellant‘s offer of the rides, she convicted him on all four counts of attempted luring. The trial court found that “[Appellant‘s] offer of a ride to the victims is sufficient to constitute an attempt to ‘lure.‘” Trial Court Opinion, 6/26/08, at 6. The trial court subsequently sentenced Appellant to 18 months’ probation. As an automatic result of his convictions, Appellant is now statutorily mandated to register for ten years as a sex offender under Megan‘s Law,
Appellant filed a counseled appeal to the Superior Court, arguing that the evidеnce was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain his conviction, because his offer of a ride to the children, by itself, did not constitute a “lure” or an attempt to “lure,” given that he did not offer the children any enticement to get into his car, nor did he command or otherwise threaten them. Appellant also argued that he had no ill intent in offering the children a ride, but, rather, was merely acting as a “disabled Good Samaritan.” Id.
Appellant, proceeding pro se, sought allowance of appeal from our Court, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. We granted allowance of appeal to consider the following question:
Whether a person who offers a child a ride without previously obtaining the permission of a parent of the child, but who otherwise lacks criminal intent to harm the child, may be convicted of luring a child into a motor vehicle under
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2910 ?
Commonwealth v. Hart, 605 Pa. 406, 990 A.2d 724 (2010).4
In our order granting allowance of appeal, we additionally directed the parties to address the applicability of the Superior Court decisions of Adamo and Figueroa to the resolution of
We preface our analysis of this issue with a recitation of Section 2910, as well as a discussion of the Superior Court panel decisions of Adamo and Figueroa, as a full еxamination of the court‘s respective interpretation of the term “lure” in each decision is necessary to place the parties’ arguments presently before us in their proper context.
The text of Section 2910 provides:
§ 2910. Luring a child into a motor vehicle or structure
(a) Offense.—Unless the circumstances reasonably indicate that the child is in need of assistance, a person who lures or attempts to lure a child into a motor vehicle or structure without the consent, express or implied, of the child‘s parent or guardian commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(b) Affirmative defense.—It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the person lured or attempted to lure the child into the structure for a lawful purpose.
Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any ‘luring’ occurred.) Consequently, our grant of review requires determining whether the evidence was legally sufficient for the Commonwealth to have proven the offense of attempted luring beyond a reasonable doubt. This determination, by necessity, includes ascertaining whether Appellant‘s conduct, as a matter of law, constituted an attempt to “lure” as that term is used in
(c) Definitions.—As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:
“Motor vehicle.” Every self-propelled device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway.
“Structure.” A house, apartment building, shop, warehouse, barn, building, vessel, railroad car, cargo container, house car, trailer, trailer coach, camper, mine, floating home оr other enclosed structure capable of holding a child, which is not open to the general public.
Notably, neither the present version of Section 2910, nor its original incarnation,5 defines the term “lure.” In Adamo—a case which involved a prosecution under the prior statute—the defendant was convicted of attempting to lure a child into his motor vehicle for the act of offering the child $1,000 for a half an hour‘s “work.” Adamo, 637 A.2d at 305. When the child asked what it was he would be doing to earn the $1,000, the defendant replied that he would not disclose the nature of the work unless the child accompanied the defendant to the car. The defendant admonished the child not to say anything to anyone, even if he declined to go to the car, because of the defendant‘s fear he would “get in trouble” since the child was a minor. Adamo, 637 A.2d at 306. After the child reported the incident to his mother, the defendant was arrested, charged, and convicted of violating Section 2910.
On appeal to the Superior Court, the defendant presented a number of challenges to his conviction, including constitutional challenges tо Section 2910 based on his contentions that the statute was both void for vagueness and facially overbroad. The court rejected both challenges. The court determined
With respect to his claim that Section 2910 was overbroad, the defendant argued that the statute chilled the exercise of First Amendment rights by criminalizing innocent offers of a ride to an adolescent, such as those made by a friend or neighbor, any time such offers were extended without first obtaining parental consent. The court rejected that claim, however, construing Section 2910 to be “inapplicable” to such situations because such offers are not “accompanied by any . . . inducement.” Adamo, 637 A.2d at 307. The court reasoned:
These simple offers do not involve a “lure.” To “lure,” inter alia, is defined as: to tempt by pleasure or gain. Webster‘s New International Dictionary 1347 (3d ed.1976).
Where [the defendant] attempts to show that the Commonwealth has failed to establish a “lure,” he misses the point. For this intended victim, the lure was the offer of the one thousand dollars, not the actual money; for a younger child the lure might be a lollypop or a hamburger at McDonald‘s. For centuries people have used the prospect of pleasure or financial gain to “lure” others into places, situations and investments without producing a single dollar of currency or a promised treat. On these facts, we determine that [the defendant] attempted to “lure” his intended victim. The other situations [the defendant] describes would not fall within the ambit of Section 2910. There is no lure, no promise of pleasure, no enticement nor financial gain involved.
However, in its subsequent Figueroa decision, the Superior Court ostensibly embraced a more expansive, and seemingly
The defendant was later arrested, tried, and convicted, after a non-jury trial, of the offense of luring.6 In convicting the defendant, the trial court reasoned that Section 2910 was a strict liability statute and that violation of any of its provisions was sufficient to convict, regardless of motive.
On appeal to the Superior Court, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction and, as the defendant had done in Adamo, contended that the statute was constitutionally infirm for vagueness and overbreadth. With respect to the defendant‘s sufficiency challenge, the court considered it to be a claim, based on Adamo, that Section 2910 implicitly requires that a person possess an intent to do harm in order to be convicted thereunder. The Figueroa court acknowledged the Adamo decision, but rejected the defendant‘s argument that it required any showing of an intent to harm for a conviction. The court conceded that the offer in Adamo could have been “an invitation to sexual misconduct,” Figueroa, 648 A.2d at 557, but it determined that the Adamo court based its decision not on that fact, but, rather, on a strict reading of the statute and found that intent to harm was not an express requirement of Section 2910. However, the Figueroa court rebuffed the notion that Section 2910 was a strict liability statute, and found that, because the statute did not set forth a specific mens rea requirement, the
When the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto.
The Figueroa court additionally concluded the Adamo court‘s “inducement” requirement was met, deeming the offer of a ride to school on a snowy, icy day to meet this requirement, since, in the Figueroa court‘s view, it could have been regarded by the childrеn as a “favorable enticement.” Figueroa, 648 A.2d at 557. The court therefore concluded that the defendant‘s knowing conduct of “inviting the children into his car with a promise of a ride to school or the bus stop . . . is sufficient to meet the prohibitions of the statute.” Figueroa, 648 A.2d at 557-558 (emphasis supplied). The court reasoned, “[i]t is a perfectly reasonable and efficacious enactment for the legislature to declare that an adult should not, under penalty of law, invite a child (without the parent‘s consent which may be implied) into his car.” Id. at 558. The court explained, “[v]iewing this crime as a threshold prophylactic rule for the terrible crime of kidnapping, we conclude that it is a legitimate exercise of the legislature‘s discretion, to prohibit persons from offering rides to children under any invitational pretext.” Id.
Thus, under the Figueroa decision, the mere extension of an invitation to a child for an automobile ride constituted a lure, and, thus, no additional enticement or inducement for the child to enter the car beyond the offer of the ride itself was required. As a result in Figueroa and Adamo, the Superior Court has issued seemingly conflicting interpretations of the term “lure.”
With this background in mind, we now consider the parties’ arguments. Appellant first points out that the trial court convicted him based solely on his offer of a ride to the boys, and, in so doing, specifically relied on Figueroa‘s holding that
Appellant urges that the term “lure” must be clarified so that the public can know what conduct is prohibited. He underscores the contradiction between the Adamo and Figueroa courts’ definition of the term, pointing out that the Adamo court interpreted it to be an offer of something pleasurable or financially rewarding, whereas the Figueroa court found that the mere offer of a ride in inclement weather conditions was sufficient. In this case, Appellant contends it was the simplе prospect of getting out of a drizzle that the lower courts determined to be a sufficient enticement so as to constitute a “lure.” Appellant posits that there seems, then, to be no circumstance under which an adult, who possesses good intentions in offering a minor a ride, such as making transportation easier, faster, or removing the child from the influence of the elements, can make such an offer without violating the statute. Appellant suggests that this type of situation can occur in any neighborhood where an adult offers a child who lives there a ride to avoid inclement weather, believing that parental consent to do so would be implied from the fact the adult knows the child from seeing the child in the yard or at a bus stop and, also knows the child‘s parents from similar interactions. However, Appellant acknowledges that the current interpretation of this statute would not allow such a belief.
Appellant notes that society rightly imposes strict liability for certain inherently dangerous behaviors such as drunk driving or driving a car exceedingly fast, and criminаl statutes pertaining to these behaviors give people fair notice of exactly what conduct is proscribed. By contrast, he asserts there is nothing inherently dangerous or harmful in offering a child a
The Commonwealth responds by characterizing the central issue in this case as a question of statutory interpretation, not one of constitutionality. The Commonwealth acknowledges that Section 2910 is a penal statute and, hence, must be strictly construed; however, the Commonwealth notes that we are not required to give the words of this statute their narrowest meaning, nor disregard what is the evident legislative intent of the statute. The Commonwealth proffers that when the plain meaning оf the words of Section 2910 are considered they do not require any proof of an individual‘s intent to harm in order for the individual to be convicted. Rather, in the Commonwealth‘s view, all that the statute requires is that the Commonwealth prove a defendant: “(1) lured or attempted to lure a child; (2) into a vehicle or structure; (3) without the express or implied permission of the child‘s parent or guardian; and (4) the circumstances did not reasonably indicate that the child was in need of assistance.” Commonwealth‘s Brief at 11. However, the Commonwealth suggests that the statute does incorporate the default mens rea requirement of
The Commonwealth propounds that the Superior Court, in Adamo and Figueroa, properly construed Section 2910 in accordance with these principles. In neither case, according to the Commonwealth, did the Superior Court interpret this section to require an intent to harm the child. Instead, the Commonwealth argues that the statute was read to require “only that a defendant intend to lure a child, not harm the child once lured.” Id. at 14. Thus, the Commonwealth advances the contention that, in the absence of an emergency or parental consent, “an invitation into a vehicle with the intent that the child actually enters [sic] the vehicle suffices to meet the prohibitions of the statute.” Id. The Commonwealth maintains that the legislature, in drafting Section 2910, expressly declined to include an “intent to harm” element in the statute. Thus, it claims that this omission, as well as the legislature‘s specific recognition of a defense to luring a child into a structure under Section 2910(b) based on the action having been undertaken for a lawful purpose, and its corresponding failure to extend that same defense to luring a child into a motor vehicle under Section 2910(a), demonstrates that criminalization of any act of luring children into motor vehicles without parental consent or an emergency is exactly what the legislature intended. Hence, the Commonwealth contends that adding an intent to harm element to the crime statute would be contrary to the express intentions of the legislature.
We begin оur analysis by observing, as the Commonwealth correctly discerns, our grant of allowance of appeal did not include the question of whether Section 2910 is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is either void for vagueness, or overbroad. Appellant sought review from our Court for his claim that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for violating Section 2910 based on his contention that he did not engage in conduct that constituted “luring.” We granted allowance of appeal to consider only this particular challenge.
In interpreting Section 2910, as with any statute, our standard of review is de novo. Commonwealth v. McClintic, 589 Pa. 465, 472, 909 A.2d 1241, 1245 (2006). Consequently, we are not bound by the lower court‘s conclusions regarding the proрer meaning of the applicable provisions of this statute. See Commonwealth v. Kyle, 582 Pa. 624, 632, 874 A.2d 12, 17 (2005) (holding that our Court owes no duty of deference to the legal conclusions of lower courts regarding an issue of statutory construction). Our interpretation is guided by the polestar principles set forth in the Statutory Construction Act,
As we have often recognized, “[t]he General Assembly‘s intent is best expressed through the plain language of the statute.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 603 Pa. 31, 39, 981 A.2d 893, 897 (2009); Commonwealth v. McCoy, 599 Pa. 599, 609, 962 A.2d 1160, 1166 (2009). Therefore, when the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they will be given effect consistent with their plain and common meaning.
Concomitant with these considerations, the Statutory Construction Act also sets forth certain presumptions regarding the General Assembly‘s enactment of statutes which are to be applied when attempting to ascertain its legislative intent. In particular, when interpreting a statutory provision we must presume that the legislature: does not intend a result that is unreasonable, absurd, or impossible of execution,
With these principles in mind, we examine the text of Section 2910 which sets forth three requirements the Commonwealth must establish beyond a reasonable doubt to convict an individual of the offense of attempted luring of a child into a motor vehicle: (1) the individual attempted to lure a child into a motor vehicle; (2) without the express or implied consent of the child‘s parent or guardian; and (3) under
In the present case, the only contested element of this offense is whether Appellant‘s offers of rides to the boys constituted an attempt to “lure” them into his vehicle. Resolution of this pivotal question is, thus, dependent on the meaning of the term “lure.” As the legislature did not define this term, its common and approved usage may be ascertained by examining its dictionary definition. See Fogle v. Malvern Courts, Inc., 554 Pa. 633, 637, 722 A.2d 680, 682 (1999) (approving of dictionaries being used as source material for determining the common and approved usage of a term); Kelley, 569 Pa. at 186, 801 A.2d at 555 (relying on dictionary to determine plain meaning and ordinary usage of term “intercourse” as used in Section 3101 of the Crimes Code); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 542 Pa. 568, 669 A.2d 315 (1995) (using dictionary to ascertain plain meaning of the term “jurisdictional“).
The most commonly accepted definition of “lure” when used as a verb is “to tempt with a promise of pleasure or gain.” Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary, 1347 (3d. ed.1986). Further, “lure suggests an irresistible force, as desire, greed, curiosity, etc. in attracting someone, esp[ecially] to something harmful or evil.” Webster‘s New World Dictionary, 806 (3d. College Edition 1988); see also American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 747 (2d. College Edition 1982) (defining lure to mean “[t]o attract by wiles or temptation; entice” and explaining “lure [and its synonymous verbs, entice, inveigle, decoy, tempt, or seduce] refer to leading or attempting to lead a person from his course, usually into harm or wrong, by exerting a strong attraction. Lure strongly implies capture by calculated and deliberate means.“). Necessarily, then, we determine that a “lure” involves the making of a promise of pleasure or gain, the furnishing of а temptation or enticement, or the performance of some other affirmative act calculated to strongly induce another individual
By contrast, the acts of merely extending a plain invitation, or making a neutral offer to another person, which are unaccompanied by any inducement intended or designed to increase the probability that the person will accept, do not, in their most common understanding, constitute endeavors to “lure.” See American Heritage Dictionary, supra, at 675 (principally defining the verb “invite” as “[t]o request the presence“) and Webster‘s Third International, supra, at 1566 (primarily construing the verb “offer” as “to present for acceptance or rejection“). Such acts simply do not involve the additional and extra element of powerful persuasion designed to influence the person to take action, which is the sine qua non of a lure. See Adamo, 637 A.2d at 307 (holding that a simple offer of a ride by a friend or neighbor does not constitute a “lure” as that term is usually defined, as thе offer is not accompanied by an inducement such as a “promise of pleasure,” “an enticement,” or prospect of “financial gain“).
Therefore, as the legislature specifically chose to use the term “lure” in Section 2910, not alternative words such as “invite” or “offer entry,” and because this is a penal statute which we must strictly construe, it is only that particular and specific conduct meeting the definition of a “lure” which this statute properly may be interpreted to criminally prohibit. Consistent with the plain and unambiguous meaning of the term “lure,” we therefore hold that an attempt to lure under Section 2910 does not occur upon the mere offer of a ride in a motor vehicle to a child, but, rather, involves only situations where a child is provided a further enticement or inducement to enter the vehicle, in addition to the offer of the ride, particularly under such circumstances which suggest the child is being led into a potentially harmful situation. As the Superior Court recognized in Adamo, this enticement or inducement may be the promise of a pleasurablе reward for entry into the vehicle such as receiving money or a treat such as candy or ice cream. Likewise, a similar attractive temptation could be created with the promise of the opportunity for
Conversely, as the Superior Court also has recognized, an enticement or inducement may take the form of a directive or a command to a child to enter a car, which suggests deleterious consequences to the child if he or she does not obey. In Commonwealth v. Nanorta, 742 A.2d 176 (Pa.Super.1999), the defendant was convicted of attempted luring based on his act of ordering a ten-year-old female he observed bicycling by herself along the street to “get in my car.” Id. at 177. The court affirmed the defendant‘s conviction and adopted the trial court‘s reasoning that the command contained an implied promise that the child would avoid an unpleasant consequence if she complied. Thus, both courts viewed the prospect of relief from a prospective adverse outcome to be a sufficient inducement for the child to go along with the command, and, hence, brought it within the ambit of an attempted lure. Such an interpretation is consistent with the plain meaning of the term “lure,” because a brazen order to a child to enter a vehicle made by a stranger creates a strong fear-based incentive for the child to follow that particular course of action, as he or she subjectively may believe that is the only way to avoid harm. For that reason, such conduct is also proscribed by Section 2910.8
Even so, we cannot accept the Figueroa court‘s broad interpretation of the term “lure,” endorsed by the Commonwealth herein, which construes lure to include any offer of a ride in a car by an adult to a child, even if unaccompanied by any additional inducement for the child to enter the car. Such a construction is in conflict with the commonly understood and
most, unsuccessfully tried to do so which was conduct punishable by
As the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion notes, in response to the Tate decision, the legislature amended Section 2910 to proscribe the offense of attempted luring and, also, established a specific defense for the offensе of luring or attempting to lure a child into a structure: “It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the person lured or attempted to lure the child into the structure for a lawful purpose.”
Turning to the evidence herein, when viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as our standard of review requires, Eichinger, supra, the record establishes only that Appellant offered two boys from his neighborhood a ride to school on two separate occasions—nothing more. He extended no other enticement, nor did he offer any оther inducement to the boys for them to enter his car. Likewise, he did not direct or command them to enter his vehicle, nor did he threaten them with harm if they failed to accept his offers of a ride. Consequently, under these circumstances, where the evidence of record showed only that Appellant twice offered a ride to two children, and did not additionally provide any temptation or enticement for the boys to enter his vehicle, the mere act of offering the ride, standing alone, did not fall within the common, ordinary, and accepted meaning of a “lure.” The evidence, therefore, is insufficient as a matter of law to support Appellant‘s conviction for attempted luring. Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court is reversed and Appellant is discharged.
Chief Justice CASTILLE, Justices BAER, McCAFFERY and ORIE MELVIN join the opinion.
Justice SAYLOR files a concurring opinion.
Justice EAKIN files a concurring and dissenting opinion.
Justice SAYLOR, concurring.
While determining the breadth of the statutory concept of “luring” presents an important question, I agree with Mr. Justice Eakin that the inquiry resides outside the boundaries of the issue the Court has framed for review in this case. See Concurring & Dissenting Opinion, Op. at 556 & n.1, 28 A.3d at 912-13 & n. 1 (citing Commonwealth v. Hart, 605 Pa. 406, 990
Since the majority broaches the definitional issue, consistent with the rule of lenity, I agree with its approach imposing a limiting construction relative to the otherwise undefined concept of “luring.” I merely note that the Legislature may have wished to minimize the substantial subjectivity in terms of what may constitute a “lure” by casting a wide net.²
I concur with the majority‘s holding
The majority correctly points out that “[t]he object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly.” Id., at 547, 28 A.3d at 908 (quoting
In Commonwealth v. Tate, 572 Pa. 411, 816 A.2d 1097 (2003), this Court analyzed the former luring statute² and
After our decision in Tate, the General Assembly amended § 2910 to include attempted luring³ and to include an affirmative defense for luring a child into a structure.4 It did not extend that affirmative defense to vehicles. If the Legislature intended to provide an additional exception for “Good Samaritan” drivers, it could have done so. Instead, it did not include an affirmative defense for inviting a child into a vehicle for a lawful purpose, while specifically providing one for luring a child into a structure. Thus, in response to оur rationale in Tate, the General Assembly clarified its intent to impose an absolute prohibition on trying to get a child into a vehicle
The plain language of the statute is clear, as is legislative intent demonstrated by the limitation on the affirmative defense: absent parental consent or emergency circumstances, an adult may not invite a child into a vehicle. While the majority desires to protect “Good Samaritans,” its interpretation permits a would-be molester or kidnapper to invite a child into his vehicle without violating the statute, as long as he does so without offering any additional enticement or temptation. By expanding “luring” to include elements not in the statute, my colleagues create a loophole not intended by the Legislature, nor necessary to reach the end they seek. See Tate, at 1098 (citing
The danger my colleagues seek to prevent is prosecution of the innocent, the soccer mom who offers a ride home to a neighborhood kid without prior express parental permission. Were any law enforcement personnel so foolish as to bring such a charge, the statute would not permit such a prosecution, for parental consent may be implied in such a case. Common sense is not left at the curb, so to speak, and such implied consent is inherent in most every legitimate “Good Samaritan” situation. We need not graft lurid elements of temptation into the statute to protect the innocent—that protection exists with the requirement that there be no implied consent. We once lived in a world where offering your child‘s teammate a ride home was not only accepted, it was expected. While the world has changed, there remain bastions of civility where consent of the parent would still be implied by the circumstances—I suggest most if not all of Pennsylvania would be included. Consent is implicit in the soccer mom scenario. It is not inherent when a stranger, twice, offers a ride to kids not in need of a ride.
Notes
Whether all the evidence produced at trial was considered that led the Trial Court to find that I, Mr. Hart‘s actions came within the scope for his conviction of
Petition for Allowance of Appeal at 3 (“Questions Presented for Review“) (emphasis in original). 1. We granted allowance of appeal to address the following issue:
Whether a person who offers a child a ride without previously obtaining the permission of a parent of the child, but who otherwise lacks criminal intent to harm the child, may be convicted of luring a child into a motor vehicle under
Commonwealth v. Hart, 605 Pa. 406, 990 A.2d 724 (2010).
Nevertheless, as the General Assembly imposes more expansive prohibitions which do not encompass traditional mens rea requirements, constitutional concerns are magnified. Cf. generally Commonwealth v. Samuels, 566 Pa. 109, 113-46, 778 A.2d 638, 641-62 (2001) (Saylor, J., concurring). Tools of statutory construction, such as the rule of lenity and the presumption that the Legislature intends to comply with the Constitution, serve as a check on vague statutory drafting manifesting too much delegation to prosecutorial discretion as the sole measurе to protect otherwise innocent conduct. 2. When we decided Tate, § 2910 stated:
A person who lures a child into a motor vehicle without the consent, express or implied, of the child‘s parent or guardian, unless the circumstances reasonably indicate that the child is in need of assistance, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Unless the circumstances reasonably indicate that the child is in need of assistance, a person who lures or attempts to lure a child into a motor vehicle or structure without the consent, express or implied, of the child‘s parent or guardian commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Affirmative defense.—It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the person lured or attempted to lure the child into the structure for a lawful purpose.
A person who lures a child into a motor vehicle without the consent, express or implied, of the child‘s parent or guardian, unless the circumstances reasonably indicate that the child is in need of assistance, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.