Adult chat lines in louisiana
As a result, minors may easily access those chat rooms by entering a fictitious age. In a case that is factually similar to the case at bar, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a conviction of attempted aggravated rape. Much as in the case sub judice, the agent posed as a mother of a nine-year-old daughter.
Defendant, James Clyde Prine, Jr., was charged with computer-aided solicitation of a minor that occurred on February 19, 2007, in violation of La. The chat rooms, which are administered by Yahoo, are not solely adult chat rooms since Yahoo does not require age verification. Defendant claims that when the victim is fictitious, as in this case, nothing more than mere preparation is possible. In that case, a state agent for Wyoming was working on the Department of Justice's Eye Tech Task Force conducting undercover internet operations.
Defendant later stated, “I think we should meet at your home. Then if we like each other ․ we're already there, okay?
” The agent told defendant that the store at the corner of Airline Drive and Brownlee Road, which was the meeting place they had discussed earlier, would be a preferable meeting place.
On October 10, 2007, a jury found defendant guilty of both charges.
The officer said yes; defendant said “wow,” then asked for a picture which was not sent; however, defendant's photo showed up in the chat dialog as the two were communicating. During these chats, defendant repeatedly referred to raping the nine-year-old orally, vaginally and anally, and consistently spoke of gagging and beating the child.
On February 26, 2008, defendant was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment at hard labor for the attempted aggravated rape conviction, and 5 years imprisonment at hard labor for the computer-aided solicitation of a minor with the terms to run consecutively and be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.The officer asked what defendant liked to do for fun; defendant responded, “[s]ex.”Defendant then asked if “[m]om and dad keep a close eye on you? The delineation between mere preparation and an overt act has not been precisely defined. The distinction between which of a defendant's actions constitute an attempt, and which are mere preparation, is fact specific to each case; the trier of fact must determine where a defendant's actions fall on the continuum. An act need not be directly proximate to commission of a crime in order to be properly classified as an overt act. Smith, 94-3116 (La.10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442, 444; State v. Further, an overt act need not be such that it will result in commission of the crime unless frustrated by extraneous circumstances. Defendant told the agent that he had previously had sex with an 11-year-old and had raped a 16-year-old. ” The officer responded, “[d]on't have a dad ․ [m]om at work and she is pretty cool.” Defendant asked about the pill, whether “[m]om comes home late,” and if “[t]oday [is] one of those days? 2d Cir.1984), writ denied, 456 So.2d 1018 (La.1984). The state supreme court has explained that a defendant's actions which are “mere preparation” and those which may be identified as acts “for the purpose of and tending directly toward” commission of a crime may be understood as existing on a continuum. Defendant forwarded child pornography links to the agent, including an “invitation only” website that defendant had created. Rogers, 03-1203 (La.11/14/03), 862 So.2d 963; State v. Defendant asked whether Jess's breasts had developed yet and acted disappointed when told, “barely.” Defendant also asked, “[w]ill you work her over or just me? When the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct evidence and inferred from the circumstantial evidence must be sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. ”The agent had told defendant that “she” lived in Brownlee Estates.