Utah Court of Appeals Upholds Conviction in Online Sting Case
The defendant in this case reached out to a profile on an adult dating app. The profile listed the user’s age as eighteen and showed photos of an adult woman. In reality, a police officer was operating the account as part of an undercover investigation.
As the conversation continued, the profile user told the defendant that she was 13 years old and mentioned school and parental oversight. Despite that disclosure, the defendant kept the conversation going. He exchanged sexually explicit messages, discussed paying for sex, and eventually arranged to meet in person.
When the defendant arrived at the agreed location with cash and food he had been asked to bring, officers arrested him. During a recorded interview afterward, the defendant admitted that he knew the person claimed to be thirteen and acknowledged that he had made a serious mistake. A jury later convicted him of enticing a minor, a second-degree felony. The defendant appealed.
Entrapment and Attorney Performance
On appeal, the defendant argued that police had entrapped him as a matter of law. He also claimed his trial attorney was ineffective for not pressing that argument further through a renewed motion to dismiss or a motion for a directed verdict.
The court was not persuaded. It explained that entrapment requires more than police creating an opportunity to commit a crime. Once the person clearly stated she was thirteen, the defendant had a clear chance to stop. Instead, he continued the conversation and took concrete steps toward meeting her.
Because a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant acted on his own after learning the claimed age, entrapment was not established as a matter of law. Any renewed motion would have failed, and the court concluded that defense counsel was not ineffective for choosing not to pursue a losing argument.
Claims About Missing Evidence
The defendant also argued that the State violated due process by failing to preserve the complete dating profile, original photos, and related metadata.
The court applied Utah’s Tiedemann analysis, which requires a defendant to show a reasonable probability that lost evidence would have helped the defense. Here, the court found that the showing was lacking. The jury already knew that the profile listed an age of eighteen and used photos of an adult woman. More importantly, the case turned on the defendant’s belief after he was told the person was thirteen.
Given the defendant’s admissions and his continued conduct after that disclosure, the court concluded there was no meaningful chance that the missing materials would have changed the outcome.
Confidential Informant Issue
The State also refused to disclose the identity of the adult model whose photos appeared on the profile, citing the confidential informant privilege. The defendant argued that the model’s testimony was necessary for a fair trial.
The court disagreed. It reasoned that the model’s age, appearance, and photo-taking process were not central to the case. What mattered was the defendant’s state of mind. The existing evidence was more than sufficient on that point, making disclosure unnecessary.
Miranda Arguments
Finally, the defendant challenged the admission of his post-arrest statements. He argued that he had invoked his right to counsel or, alternatively, that police never obtained a valid Miranda waiver.
The court rejected both claims. The defendant’s reference to an attorney occurred while he was confirming that he understood his rights. It was not an explicit request for counsel. After that exchange, he answered questions willingly. Under Utah law, that conduct supported an implied waiver of his Miranda rights.
Bottom Line
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in full. The decision reinforces a key principle in online sting cases: once a defendant is clearly told that a person is a minor, continued pursuit of sexual contact weighs heavily against entrapment or mistake defenses. It also underscores how difficult it is to succeed on claims involving missing digital evidence or challenges to standard undercover practices.