State V. Bullock Case Brief

...

sexual exploitation of a minor. The defendant was found guilty of taking a “substantial step” towards committing the two counts against him. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed.

Issue: By simply arriving at the agreed upon place with items that were discussed to be used to record their sexual acts with a “purported” thirteen year old girl constitute taking a substantial step? The defendant argued that the State failed to prove the guilty verdicts because of insufficient evidence towards both counts and claims error in the court’s denial of an instruction claiming entrapment on both charges. The defendant argued that he was not predisposed to engage in the charged offenses.

Decision: Yes. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the lower courts judgement and upheld the defendant’s conviction.

Rationale: The court reasoned that, the defendant took a substantial step by arriving to the arranged location with the “promised” items. The court also reasoned that, the denial of an instruction claiming entrapment was negated because the defendant was “ready and willing” to commit the unlawful acts. The court reasoned that the defendant initiated the sexual conversations and was completely willing to engage in the criminal conduct.

Notes: In State v. Young, (Mo. App. W. D. 2204), the court found the defendant took a substantial step when he traveled to the arranged place at the arranged time carrying the “promised items.” By the defendant driving to the location, exiting his car, looking into the store for the “purported” thirteen year old girl, and then walking towards the restroom to meet, the defendant more than willing took a substantial step in committing the offenses that he was charged with. He had in his possession the recording equipment that was discussed to record the sexual acts between him and her friends. I agree with the court’s decision and affirmation that the defendant was guilty on both counts and his argument of entrapment was not sufficient. The undercover agent may have been an enthusiastic participant, but the defendant was more than willing to engage in activities that he knew were illegal and sought out ways to protect his identification from authorities.

1. https://casetext.com/#!/case/state-v-bullock-80