Colorado Court of Appeals People v. Heywood 11CA2165

Decision here.

   Heywood was in an online chat room which was supposed to be reserved for people 18 and older.  He was exchanging sexually explicit messages with at least two other chat room users (both of whom were actually the same undercover cop).

   In one of these fake accounts, the cop claimed to be a 14 year old girl.  He made this claim after Heywood sent her an invitation to view a live feed of him masturbating.  When he made this claim, it took Heywood about five minutes to kill the feed (during which time he was telling her that she shouldn't be watching, and to hit him up when she's 18, but he was still masturbating).  In the other fake account, the cop claimed to be 22 and arranged to meet Heywood in person.  When they met, Heywood was arrested.

   He was arrested for violating 18-3-405.4(1)(b), which says:

An actor commits internet sexual exploitation
of a child if the actor knowingly importunes,
invites, or entices through communication via
a computer network . . . or instant message, a
person whom the actor knows or believes to be
under fifteen years of age and at least four
years younger than the actor, to . . . [o]bserve
the actor's intimate parts via a computer
network . . . or instant message.

   He appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction.  Ruling that the uncontested evidence showed that he did not have any reason to think the undercover agent was only 14 when he extended the invitation, and therefore he did not knowingly invite/intice/whatever an underaged person to look at his junk, the court of appeals reversed the trial court and remanded the case for an entry of acquittal.