After Reversal by Appeals Court, Supreme Court Reinstates Conviction in Enticement Case

In State v. Green, the Georgia Supreme Court reinstated the defendant’s conviction for attempting to entice a child for indecent purposes. The conviction had been reversed by the Court of Appeals which found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the defendant’s actions were for “indecent purposes.”

The Supreme Court disagreed and held that his sexually suggestive comments to an adult woman moments earlier was admissible to show that his purpose in speaking with the minor in question was “indecent.”

Background

The evidence at trial showed that a young girl was walking her dog in the neighborhood when the defendant pulled up in his car and began speaking with her. The defendant told her that her father had sent him to come pick her up. Both the girl and her father testified at trial that they did not know the defendant.

The defendant opened the passenger side door and gestured for her to get into the car. The girl testified that the defendant got angry when she refused, but he did not threaten her, touch her, nor saying anything inappropriate or sexual to her.

Green then sped off and the girl called 911 saying that a man just tried to kidnap her. The defendant was located by the police a few minutes later in a CVS parking lot. While at the CVS, the officers learned from an employee that the defendant had tried to lure two female employees into his car.

Another CVS employee testified that the defendant made some inappropriate sexual comments to her, asking, “are you ready for a good time?” He also said that he could “show her a few tricks.”

The defendant testified at trial that he was not planning to harm the girl in any way and had “no intentions of nothing” with regards to her.

At the conclusion of the trial, the defense made a motion for directed verdict, arguing that there was no evidence of “a sexual advance” or any intent to engage in inappropriate conduct with the girl. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant was then convicted by the jury.

Court of Appeals’ Decision

The Court of Appeals agreed with the defense’s argument and reversed the defendant’s conviction. Citing to its prior decisions, it explained that a conviction for enticing a child “must be based upon some evidence that an act of indecency or child molestation was the intended motivation for the enticement.”

The Court concluded that while the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant “attempted to entice the minor victim into his vehicle,” the evidence with regards to his intended purpose was not only insufficient “but lacking altogether.”

The Court also rejected the State’s argument that the defendant’s comments to the CVS employee – that were “arguably suggestive” – constituted evidence of an indecent purpose for enticing the girl.

The Court reasoned that the defendant’s sexually suggestive comments to the CVS employee were not relevant because they were made to an adult rather than a child. The Court held that the incident at the CVS was simply “not evidence” as far as the attempted enticement charge was concerned.

Georgia Supreme Court’s Analysis

At the outset, the Supreme Court noted that “evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence…more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

It is clear that the defendant’s intent, or purpose, was “of consequence” since it was an element of the enticement offense. However, the Supreme Court differed from the Court of Appeals and stated that the conduct at the CVS made it more probable that the defendant acted with “a similar, sexually-related intent” with regards to the young girl.

As a result, the Supreme Court held that the defendant’s conduct at the CVS was relevant to the determination of whether he had an indecent purpose for enticing the child. The next question was whether this evidence was sufficient to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court concluded that the jury could infer from the evidence – as well as from the defendant’s less than believable insistence that he “had no intentions of nothing” – that he was motivated by a purpose that was sexual in nature. It also felt that a jury might conclude that his rejection by the CVS employee could have frustrated him to the point where he felt compelled to take a chance with the minor less than an hour later.

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court held that the evidence of the defendant’s conduct at the CVS was “sufficient as a matter of constitutional due process” to prove his indecent purpose. As a result, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated his attempted enticement conviction.