That's what is prohibited," said Assistant Utah Attorney General Jeffrey Gray.Justice Michael Wilkins asked Gray if it was illegal for someone to have "cyber-sex" with someone claiming to be a minor.Taliaferro argued that on the Internet people pose as someone they are not all of the time and that it is difficult to tell who you are actually chatting with.
Taliaferro said in her client's case, he was convicted based solely on an Internet chat he claims was purely sexual fantasy.
James Gallegos, of Clearfield, was charged and convicted by a jury of enticing a 13-year-old girl over the Internet. In actuality, the 13-year-old was an adult agent with the Utah Attorney General's Internet Crimes Against Children task force.
It could be something as simple as a run away script or learning how to better use E-utilities, for more efficient work such that your work does not impact the ability of other researchers to also use our site.
To restore access and understand how to better interact with our site to avoid this in the future, please have your system administrator contact [email protected]
"He definitely did more than just chat," said Chief Justice Christine Durham.
"He set up a meeting and showed up at the scene." The statute states a person must believe that the person they are chatting with is a minor.At some point, Gallegos said he was convinced the person was a gay man posing as a girl because in the past he had arranged meetings with supposed females only to meet a man.The reason he showed up at the meeting site, was out of curiosity about this person.Durham pointed out that Gallegos went beyond sexual talk and into soliciting someone who claimed they were a minor. She added if a man walked up to a 13-year-old on the street and solicited sex, what would be the difference?"It is the solicitation, the inducement, the allure.The trial court ruled the testimony was not relevant.