I'm a few days late, but the most recent Iowa Supreme Court cases are here. Of note: State v. Quinn.
FACTS:
Sometime late in the afternoon of April 22, 2003, an eight-year-old second-grader, was riding her bike on the sidewalk across from her house, while her father was working on his motorcycle in his garage. Shortly afterward, she saw a brown car with a dark brown stripe drive by. The driver said “hi” to her. The driver turned the car around and then pulled into a driveway, blocking her path on the sidewalk. The driver spoke to her through his open window, saying, “come over here” and gesturing with his index finger to come over. She thought the driver indicated that he wanted her to “come over in the car—into the car, go into the car,” however, the driver did not offer anything to her. She then screamed, “Dad,” which brought her father over. She was hysterical, and couldn't at first describe what was wrong. Eventually, her parents called the police.
The police searched for a car that matched the description but did not find it in the area. Approximately forty-five minutes after the incident, the police had a suspect — Ryan Patrick Quinn. Officer Takacs went to Quinn’s home in Davenport and waited for him. When Quinn arrived about thirty minutes later, Officer Takacs spoke with Quinn and then contacted Chief Kopatich, who came to Quinn’s residence. Chief Kopatich photographed Quinn’s vehicle, which matched the Agnews’ description.
Quinn told the officers that he had been in Walcott earlier, he turned around in a residential neighborhood, and said “hi” to a little girl. Quinn agreed to speak with the officers at the Walcott police department where Chief Kopatich took photographs of him. At the police department, Quinn described his activities for the day. He went to a dental appointment and played golf in Iowa City. On his way home, he stopped in Durant for cigarettes. As he was driving, he threw a cigarette out the window, feared it blew into the backseat, so he stopped in Walcott to check on it. He said “hi” to a little girl, backed out of a driveway, and left the area. He heard a girl scream, but did not know what was going on.
Chief Kopatich told Quinn he did not believe the story at which point Quinn became defiant, insisting that he had told the truth. Chief Kopatich then had Quinn put in writing what he had just told the officer. After he signed the written statement, Quinn signed a Miranda rights waiver.
At trial, Officer Takacs testified that after Chief Kopatich left the room, he and Quinn had more conversation. He further testified that Quinn said the little girl was smiling and looked to be having a good time, that as soon as he made eye contact, she became scared, and “the look on her face was like she could read my mind like she knew what I wanted to do to her later.” According to Officer Takacs, the conversation continued during which Quinn said he would go out, drive around at random, and make some kind of eye contact with a female and such contact was enough stimulation for him to go home, take a nice hot shower, and masturbate. Officer Takacs further testified that Quinn said he usually preferred girls fourteen and sixteen years of age because girls his age made fun of him and that he had had only two sex partners in his life.
At Chief Kopatich’s request, Quinn signed a second written statement. In this statement, Quinn stated that he would never try to pick up a girl, never has, and never wanted to. He craves only eye contact from girls; he thinks about the eye contact when he takes a shower and masturbates.
THE LAW:
Iowa Code § 710.10(3) - A person commits an aggravated misdemeanor when, without authority and with the intent to commit an illegal act upon a minor under the age of sixteen, the person attempts to entice away a minor under the age of sixteen, or attempts to entice away a person reasonably believed to be under the age of sixteen.
“Entice” is defined under prior caselaw as “‘to draw on by arousing hope or desire’ or ‘to draw into evil ways,’” or “[t]o wrongfully solicit, persuade, procure, allure, attract, draw by blandishment, coax or seduce. To lure, induce, tempt, incite, or persuade a person to do a thing. Enticement of a child is inviting, persuading or attempting to persuade a child to enter any vehicle, building, room or secluded place with intent to commit an unlawful sexual act upon or with the person of said child.” State v. Osmundson, 546 N.W.2d 907 (Iowa 1996).
Iowa Code section 710.10(4) - A person’s intent to commit a violation of this section may be inferred when the person is not known to the person being enticed away and the person does not have the permission of the parent, guardian, or custodian to contact the person being enticed away.
ISSUES:
The defendant sought to have his conviction overturned on two grounds: 1) There was insufficient evidence to convict him of a violation of the Iowa enticement statute; and 2) That even if there was sufficient evidence, the statute itself violates the First Amendment right to free speech because it's too broad, in that 710.10(4) allows the intent to entice to be inferred whenever a minor is spoken to without parental permission.
CONCLUSION:
The Court found there was sufficient evidence to find a violation of the enticement statute under a totality of the circumstances, particularly considering the defendant's statement that the hysterical girl looked "like she could read my mind like she knew what I wanted to do to her later.”
However, the Court agreed that 710.10(4) would serve to allow a jury to infer an intent to entice even absent aggravating circumstances whenever someone would speak to a minor without permission, and so struck down the entire statute as unconstitutional, both in fact and as applied to the defendant.
OBLIGATORY BLOG COMMENTARY:
Right legal conclusion, but I still think all females will want to avoid anywhere that this guy hangs out. Creepy at best.
No comments:
Post a Comment