ILNews

Court tackles 'sexual activity' meaning in statute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed Thursday the term “sexual activity” – an issue in which there is scant law – and ordered a man be acquitted. The man was convicted under federal statute for attempting to entice a girl he believed to be less than 18 years old to engage in any sexual activity while they chatted online.

Jeffrey Taylor appealed his conviction under 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b), in which the government relied on two Indiana offenses to convict him: touching or fondling the person’s own body in the presence of someone less than 14 years old with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of a child or the older person; and knowingly or intentionally soliciting a child under 14 years old to engage in fondling or touching intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of the child or adult. Taylor chatted online with a girl he believed was 13 years old, but she was actually a police officer. Taylor fondled himself on his webcam and invited her to also touch herself.

The 7th Circuit addressed Taylor’s conduct and the meaning of the term “sexual activity” as it pertains to federal law. The term isn’t defined in the federal criminal code, but “sexual act” is defined. The judges had to decide whether “sexual activity” encompasses a broader range of acts than “sexual act.”

The judges hypothesized that perhaps because Congress didn’t define sexual activity, it considered the terms “sexual act” and "sexual activity" interchangeable. If they are synonymous, as they appear to be, then “sexual activity” requires contact because “sexual act” requires contact, wrote Judge Richard Posner.

“Congress will have to define ‘sexual activity’ more broadly than ‘sexual act’ if it wants to bring the kind of behavior engaged in by the defendant in this case within the prohibition of section 2422(b) via the fondling and child-solicitation offenses found in the Indiana criminal code, when the defendant neither made nor, so far as appears, attempted or intended physical contact with the victim,” wrote the judge.

In United States of America v. Jeffrey P. Taylor, No. 10-2715, the Circuit Court reversed Taylor’s conviction and ordered the lower court enter a judgment of acquittal.

Judge Daniel Manion didn’t agree with his colleagues’ assessment that the term “sexual activity” is the same as “sexual act,” but concurred with the majority that Taylor shouldn’t have been convicted. Judge Manion believed that Taylor couldn’t be successfully prosecuted for either of the Indiana crimes. He delved into one of the Indiana statutes used to convict Taylor – Indiana Code Section 35-42-4-(c)(3), which says it’s a crime when adults touch themselves in the presence of children less than 14 years old. But that statute doesn’t qualify the term “presence” with terms like “actual” or "constructive,” so Judge Manion believed since Taylor used a webcam when fondling himself, he wasn’t actually in the presence of the alleged minor. Other courts have held that phone conversations and webcams don’t put the adult in the presence of a child.

Judge Manion also argued Taylor couldn’t be convicted under Indiana law for solicitation because Taylor told the alleged minor that he didn’t want to meet her. He believed that statute was ambiguous, and when it was passed in the 1980s, Taylor’s conduct by using the Internet was unimaginable.

“While law constantly trails crime, in the context of sexual behavior and technology the problem is particularly clear—the old laws will not do. The legislature has to specifically address this lamentable behavior and determine what the law truly proscribes. Under our current laws, with the advent and prevalence of 'sexting' and virtual sexual behavior, many, many citizens are engaging in behavior that could make them felons,” he wrote. “It is not enough to let the courts figure it out and to try to see if old definitions fit this new and troubling behavior.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  2. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  3. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  4. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  5. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

ADVERTISEMENT