Saturday, March 17, 2012

Colorado Court of Appeals People v. Vecellio 10CA0383

Decision here.

   In this case, "Karina" (an undercover ICAC officer) had a profile on adult friend finder where she expressed an interest in someone having sex with both her and her (imaginary) 13 year old daughter.  Vecellio took the bait, and agreed to meet with Karina at a convenience store with beer and condoms, for the purpose of having sex with her underage daughter once they were all comfortable with each other (embarassingly for the profession, Vecellio was a cop).

   Of course, instead of meeting with a creepy mother and her 13 year old daughter, Vecellio was arrested.  He was charged with (and convicted of) : conspiracy to commit sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, solicitation to commit sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, criminal attempt to commit sexual assault on a child, and enticement of a child.  He claimed at the trial that he hadn't really been doing any of those things, he had actually been conducting his own super-secret undercover operation (without his employer's knowledge) so that he could get promoted.  :)

   He appealed his conviction, on the grounds that he could not have conspired with Karina because she was an undercover officer who never legitimately agreed to commit the crime conspired to, and therefore there was no conspiracy.  He also argued against the child enticement conviction on the grounds that no actual child was involved, and he didn't communicate directly with anyone pretending to be a child.  And he also claimed on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions.

   Regarding conspiracy, the court held that this crime requires that the defendant enter into an agreement with another to commit a crime.  It doesn't matter if the other party was only feigning agreement, as long as the defendant agreed and there was some substantial step taken towards the offense (like, say, driving across the state and buying condoms).  Regarding child enticement, the court held that it doesn't matter if there was no actual child involved as long as the defendant believed that there was, and also that Vecellio attempted to use Karina as his agent in inviting or persuading the imaginary victim.  Also, the court held that there was plenty of evidence in the record to support Vecellio's convictions.

No comments:

Post a Comment