Estimated read time: 2-3 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- The Utah Supreme Court is considering whether a state law on enticing minors over the Internet is too vague.
James Gallegos of Clearfield was convicted by a jury of enticing a 13-year-old girl over the Internet and sentenced to a year in jail. The conviction was based on conversations he had over the Internet with an adult agent with the Utah attorney general's Internet Crimes Against Children task force.
An attorney for Gallegos said that convicting her client based on what he wrote online is a violation of the First Amendment.
"All you're doing is criminalizing speech," said attorney Ann Taliaferro. "There has to be something more."
She said Gallegos was only engaging in a sexual fantasy.
Gallegos chatted with the agent twice in 2006, according to court documents. During those online chats, Gallegos said the girl was possibly too young but then suggested how he would like to sexually touch her.
The agent and Gallegos arranged a meeting outside a school in Sandy. When Gallegos drove by the meeting spot, officers said he sped off. Gallegos eventually turned himself in.
Gallegos contends he never believed the person he was chatting with was a minor. He said he was convinced the person was a gay man posing as a girl because that had happened to him in the past. He said he only showed up to meet the agent to see who it was.
In an earlier hearing, 3rd District Judge Stephen Henroid ruled that it didn't matter that Gallegos showed up at the meeting site. He said the crime was completed over the Internet.
State law says a person must believe that the person they are chatting with is a minor. On Wednesday, Justice Matthew Durrant said he wondered if the case depended on whether Gallegos believed the agent was a minor.
However, Chief Justice Christine Durham noted that Gallegos went beyond sexual talk and into soliciting someone who claimed to be a minor. She said that's illegal. Gallegos' attorneys are also challenging a judge's denial of an expert witness, a doctor who would testify that Gallegos was not attracted to minor girls and not a pedophile. The trial court ruled the testimony wasn't relevant.
The Supreme Court is not expected to issue a ruling for several months.
(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
