PHOENIXΒ β Someone who tries to lure an "underage" person into a sexual act can be convicted and required to serve a longer sentence even if there was no minor to begin with, the Arizona Supreme Court says.
In ruling Friday, the court rejected arguments by defendant Hanees Haniffa that the fact that the "girl'' he was communicating with actually was an undercover officer meant he could not be found guilty of the crime he was charged with in 2024 of luring a minor for sexual exploitation.
The justices agreed unanimously that state lawmakers wrote the law to specifically say it is not a defense that the intended victim was not a minor.
The court split, however, on the question of whether Haniffa could be subject to another part of the law which spells out that anyone convicted of the crime must also serve the full sentence without possibility of probation, pardon or release.
Justice Maria Elena Cruz, writing for the majority, argued that the same logic applies to sentencing as to what is required for conviction: there need not be an actual minor.
But Justice Clint Bolick, in a dissenting opinion, said a strict reading of the statutes shows that the Arizona Legislature, while clarifying years ago that an undercover officer can be a victim to allow conviction for the offense, never wrote into the rest of the law that the same wording applies to sentencing.
He said that means the state, to seek the harsher sentence, needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was younger than 15, which it could not prove here.Β
With Bolick alone in his objection, the majority ruling prevails, overturning a contrary conclusion reached by both Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner and the Arizona Court of Appeals.
That, in turn, sets the precedent that will govern all future cases.
Cruz acknowledged that the state Supreme Court reached a contrary decision in a 2017 ruling. But she said the Legislature has since clarified the law, making the distinction between a real or fictitious victim "legally irrelevant.''
Anyway, Cruz said, it makes sense to interpret the law in that way. She said that "promotes protection against the threat of substantial harm to minors and the public.''
"The spirit and purpose of the statute penalizing the luring of children for sexual exploitation targets predators who prey on minors and those whose efforts are intercepted by undercover officers,'' Cruz wrote.
"As charged, the defendant here set out to intentionally harm a minor,'' she continued. "He should not escape enhanced sentencing intended to deter and punish harm against minors merely because his intended victim was, unbeknownst to him, a law enforcement officer.''
Beyond that, Cruz said public policy considerations support Friday's ruling.
"Effecting harsh punishment on persons who intend to prey on minors but fail to do so based on factual impossibility is a rational goal of criminal deterrence and is consistent with the legislature's foundational public policy concerning criminal law,'' she wrote.Β
Cruz said lawmakers have consistently expanded laws designed to protect children to also include threat-based and risk-based offenses.
"Luring exemplifies this shift: It criminalizes conduct at the solicitation stage, before physical harm occurs,'' she said. Cruz said that means the law is worded in a way so that "the relevant 'harm' became the creation of imminent risk to children as a class, not injury to a particular child.''
The justices also rejected a plea by Haniffa to apply "the rule of lenity'' in this case. That rule says that any doubts should be resolved in favor of a defendant.
Cruz said there's no basis for that claim here, as no "reasonable doubt'' exists about how the law works and how sentencing is to be imposed.
