State v. Green, 397 S.C. 268

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed Benjamin P. Green's convictions for criminal solicitation of a minor and attempted second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor. The court rejected constitutional vagueness and overbreadth challenges to South Carolina's criminal solicitation statute, held that legal impossibility was not a defense where the purported minor was an undercover law-enforcement persona, and found sufficient evidence of specific intent and an overt act. The court also upheld the admission of photographs Green sent during the online conversation.

Holdings

1. Section 16-15-342 is not unconstitutionally overbroad because it is narrowly tailored to prohibit knowing communications with a minor, or a person reasonably believed to be a minor, made with the intent to induce sexual activity or a violent crime, rather than protected speech.
2. Section 16-15-342 is sufficiently precise to provide fair notice and is not unconstitutionally vague; Green also lacked standing to assert a facial vagueness challenge based on conduct to which the statute clearly applied.
3. The use of an undercover officer posing as a minor does not defeat convictions for criminal solicitation of a minor or attempted criminal sexual conduct with a minor. Legal impossibility was unavailable for the solicitation charge by statute and did not defeat the attempt charge because completion of the underlying offense was unnecessary.
4. The evidence was sufficient to submit the attempted CSC charge to the jury because Green specifically intended to engage in sexual activity with a person he believed was fourteen and committed multiple overt acts in furtherance of that intent.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the photographs because they were relevant to Green's intent and their probative value outweighed their prejudicial effect; any error would also have been harmless.
6. Green was not entitled to an instruction on attempted assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature because the evidence showed an intent to engage in sexual battery, not conduct supporting the lesser offense.

Questions Presented

1. Whether South Carolina's criminal solicitation of a minor statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-342, is unconstitutionally overbroad or vague.
2. Whether the use of an undercover law-enforcement officer posing as a minor creates a legal-impossibility defense to criminal solicitation of a minor or attempted criminal sexual conduct with a minor.
3. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence of specific intent and an overt act to submit attempted criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree to the jury.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting photographs Green sent during the online chat.
5. Whether the evidence supported a jury instruction on attempted assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature as a lesser-included offense.

Disposition

affirmed