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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT