Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448The term shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the child.
any notice, statement, or advertisement, or any child's name, telephone number, place of residence, physical characteristics, or other descriptive or identifying information for the purpose of offering or soliciting sexual conduct of or with an identifiable child or the visual depiction of such conduct.
(Code 1981, §16-12-100.2, enacted by Ga. L. 1999, p. 232, § 2; Ga. L. 2003, p. 140, § 16; Ga. L. 2003, p. 573, § 3; Ga. L. 2007, p. 47, § 16/SB 103; Ga. L. 2007, p. 283, § 2/SB 98; Ga. L. 2013, p. 663, § 3/HB 156; Ga. L. 2016, p. 864, § 16/HB 737.)
The 2016 amendment, effective May 3, 2016, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, revised punctuation in paragraph (f)(1).
- For article, "Revenge Pornography and First Amendment Exceptions," see 65 Emory L.J. 661 (2016). For note on the 2003 amendment to this Code section, see 20 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 84 (2003).
- O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2(e)(1), obscene Internet contact with a child, did not effect a real and substantial constraint upon constitutionally protected expression and therefore did not violate the First Amendment's free speech guarantee; the word "contact" was modified by the phrase "that is intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of either the child or the person," rendering it unlikely that innocuous communications would violate the statute. Scott v. State, 299 Ga. 568, 788 S.E.2d 468 (2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1328, 197 L. Ed. 2d 517 (U.S. 2017).
- To the extent that a defendant's conduct before the effective date of O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2 violated criminal statutes already in existence, there is no indication that the legislature intended to prevent prosecution under such statutes simply because the defendant utilized a computer in the commission of the crime. Dennard v. State, 243 Ga. App. 868, 534 S.E.2d 182 (2000).
- Use of computer online services in one county in the State of Georgia, even though the user is in another county, is sufficient to prove venue under O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2. Selfe v. State, 290 Ga. App. 857, 660 S.E.2d 727 (2008), cert. denied, No. S08C0956, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 493 (Ga. 2008), overruled on other grounds, Gordon v. State, 334 Ga. App. 633, 780 S.E.2d 376 (2015).
- Contrary to the defendant's claim, a violation of one of the other statutes named in O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2(d)(1) was not required to effectively charge a crime under the statute. Wetzel v. State, 298 Ga. App. 20, 779 S.E.2d 263 (2014).
- Georgia Supreme Court holds that direct communication is not required for a conviction under O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2(d)(1) as solicitation of a child to commit the acts prohibited may be conducted through an adult intermediary who is believed to be in a position of trust or authority with respect to the child. State v. Cosmo, 295 Ga. 76, 757 S.E.2d 819 (2014).
- For purposes of O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2, the state was not required to present proof that the defendant knew the victim was under 16 at the time of the act and the trial court correctly denied the defendant a directed verdict on that basis. Wetzel v. State, 298 Ga. App. 20, 779 S.E.2d 263 (2014).
- State had jurisdiction to prosecute the defendant for computer child exploitation because the evidence showed that after being told that the person the defendant thought was a 14-year-old girl lived in Georgia, the defendant violated O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2 by utilizing computer on-line services to communicate with the purported child and entice the child to meet the defendant to engage in sexual activity. Brown v. State, 321 Ga. App. 798, 743 S.E.2d 474 (2013).
- Defendant's convictions under the computer pornography and child exploitation act, O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2, required defendant to register as a sex offender pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 42-1-12, as defendant's conviction for pornography and child exploitation under § 16-12-100.2(d) for the use of an on-line Internet service in the attempt to commit child molestation was within the definition of a "criminal offense against a victim who was a minor," pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 42-1-12; defendant had communicated with a police officer who posed as a 14-year-old girl, sent her sexually explicit messages, and arranged a meeting with her. Spivey v. State, 274 Ga. App. 834, 619 S.E.2d 346 (2005).
- Victim and accused must be together in order for the crime of child molestation to be committed pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2. Selfe v. State, 290 Ga. App. 857, 660 S.E.2d 727 (2008), cert. denied, No. S08C0956, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 493 (Ga. 2008), overruled on other grounds, Gordon v. State, 334 Ga. App. 633, 780 S.E.2d 376 (2015).
Trial court erred by convicting defendant of child molestation, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2, with regard to defendant's actions of engaging in internet communications with an undercover police officer whom defendant thought was a 15-year-old child; the state only set forth that defendant was in one county and the victim was in another, which was insufficient to show that the victim and defendant were in the presence of each other as required by the statute. Selfe v. State, 290 Ga. App. 857, 660 S.E.2d 727 (2008), cert. denied, No. S08C0956, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 493 (Ga. 2008), overruled on other grounds, Gordon v. State, 334 Ga. App. 633, 780 S.E.2d 376 (2015).
- Indictment and verdict against the defendant were not contrary to law because there was no actual victim and the victim described in the complaint, a fourteen-year-old female named "Sara," was a fiction created by law enforcement agents was proper because O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2(d) expressly provides that the sole fact that an undercover operative or law enforcement officer was involved in the detection and investigation under § 16-12-100.2 shall not constitute a defense. Lopez v. State, 326 Ga. App. 770, 757 S.E.2d 436 (2014).
Trial court properly refused to apply the rule of lenity with regard to the defendant's conviction under O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2(e)(1), and the defendant was not entitled to be convicted of only the misdemeanor offense of furnishing obscene material to a minor, in violation of § 16-12-100.1(b)(1)(B), because the defendant was charged with using Internet services to contact a person believed to be a 15-year-old child and that the contact contained explicit verbal descriptions of sexual conduct that were intended to arouse and satisfy the sexual desires of the defendant; the intent to arouse was not an element included in the misdemeanor offense. Selfe v. State, 290 Ga. App. 857, 660 S.E.2d 727 (2008), cert. denied, No. S08C0956, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 493 (Ga. 2008), overruled on other grounds, Gordon v. State, 334 Ga. App. 633, 780 S.E.2d 376 (2015).
- Just as solicitation of prostitution can be made through a third party pimp, solicitation of a child to commit the acts prohibited by O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2(d)(1) may be conducted through an adult intermediary who is believed to be in a position of trust or authority with respect to the child. State v. Cosmo, 295 Ga. 76, 757 S.E.2d 819 (2014).
- Defendant was not entrapped by law enforcement because: (1) the defendant, via electronic communications, asked an undercover officer who was posing as a teenage girl to engage in sexual intercourse and oral sodomy with the defendant, even after the "teenage girl" told the defendant that the teenage girl was 14 years old; (2) the defendant initiated the conversation during which a meeting was arranged and the defendant described in detail the sex acts which the defendant wished to perform on the teenage girl at the park where the two discussed meeting for sex; (3) when the defendant arrived at the park, the defendant possessed a condom on the defendant's person; and (4) when the officers who stopped the defendant at the park explained that the officers were with a task force for Internet crimes against children, the defendant immediately responded that the defendant was at the park to counsel a 14-year-old girl about the dangers of meeting men from the Internet. Logan v. State, 309 Ga. App. 95, 709 S.E.2d 302, cert. denied, No. S11C1101, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 579; cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 823, 181 L. Ed. 2d 533 (2011).
When the defendant was charged with using the Internet to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child or a person believed to be a child to commit an illegal sex act, under O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2(d)(1), attempted aggravated child molestation, under O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-1 and16-6-4(c), and attempted child molestation, under O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-1 and16-6-4(a), it was not error to deny the defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal based on entrapment because the jury's determination that entrapment did not occur was supported by evidence that: (1) the defendant continued communicating with a person the defendant believed to be 14 years old, including having sexually explicit conversations with the person in which the defendant stated the defendant wanted "a lot of oral," after the defendant learned that the person was 14 years old; (2) the defendant discussed with the person how the person could meet the defendant if the person could not drive, inquired whether the person had ever snuck away from home before, and stated that the defendant believed the union would be legal if the defendant were 16 years old, instead of the defendant's actual age; (3) the defendant left the defendant's home of Tennessee to meet a purportedly 14-year-old girl in order to have sex with the person, which the defendant admitted in the defendant's statements to officers; and (4) the defendant brought condoms with the defendant, which the defendant stated were to prevent any "accidents" in the event the defendant was able to have sex with the person. Millsaps v. State, 310 Ga. App. 769, 714 S.E.2d 661 (2011).
- Under O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2(d)(1), even if a defendant believes that the defendant is communicating with a child, a communication is prohibited only if the defendant engages in the communication for a prohibited underlying purpose, seducing or enticing a child so that the defendant can commit an act of child molestation. Lopez v. State, 326 Ga. App. 770, 757 S.E.2d 436 (2014).
- Evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of computer pornography and child exploitation in violation of the Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2(d)(1), because the evidence established that the defendant committed the offense by using a computer on-line service to solicit sex from a person who the defendant believed was a fifteen-year-old girl, an act which would have constituted child molestation; although the on-line solicitation crime references child molestation as an underlying purpose, the principal act proscribed by the crime is solicitation and does not require the accomplishment of an act of child molestation. Bolton v. State, 310 Ga. App. 801, 714 S.E.2d 377 (2011).
Victim's testimony that the victim and the defendant exchanged text messages about penis sizes and containing nude photos was sufficient for a jury to find the defendant guilty of using a cell phone to solicit a child under 16 to send and receive nude photos. Wetzel v. State, 298 Ga. App. 20, 779 S.E.2d 263 (2014).
In support of the defendant's conviction for computer child exploitation, the jury was authorized to find that, through email, the defendant urged and requested a person the defendant believed to be a child to engage in immoral or indecent acts. Schlesselman v. State, 332 Ga. App. 453, 773 S.E.2d 413 (2015).
Since O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2 listed on-line messaging service as a specific type of computer on-line service, an essential element of the offense, the evidence authorized a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used an on-line messaging service to contact a child with explicit verbal and visual depictions of sexual conduct. Skelhorn v. State, 332 Ga. App. 782, 773 S.E.2d 45 (2015), cert. denied, No. S15C1661, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 711 (Ga. 2015).
Evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of three counts of computer or electronic pornography and child exploitation as the evidence established that the defendant was the perpetrator because an officer created an online profile of a 14-year-old girl for use in the officer's investigations of Internet crimes against children; in pretrial interviews with the officer, the defendant admitted that the defendant's username was the one that contacted the officer; that the defendant was the person in the pictures that were sent to the officer; and that it was safe to say that the defendant was the person chatting with the officer on the relevant dates and that it was the defendant's penis shown on the webcam. Patch v. State, 337 Ga. App. 233, 786 S.E.2d 882 (2016).
- Because the defendant's prior convictions under O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2(d)(1) and (e)(1) and defendant's indictment for aggravated sexual battery, aggravated child molestation, and child molestation alleged crimes that were sexual in nature with minors and involved a lustful disposition, the independent offenses were admissible under Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 31.3(B). Butler v. State, 311 Ga. App. 873, 717 S.E.2d 649 (2011).
- Trial court did not err in granting the defendant's special demurrer and dismissing the indictment charging the defendant with attempted child molestation, O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-1 and16-6-4, attempted aggravated child molestation, O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-1 and16-6-4(c), and computer pornography, O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2(d), because the indictment contained inadequate information as to the alleged victim; attempted child molestation, attempted aggravated child molestation, and computer pornography are crimes against a particular person and require the victim to be identified in the indictment, even when the victim was a police officer using a pseudonym. State v. Grube, 315 Ga. App. 885, 729 S.E.2d 42 (2012).
- With regard to an indictment charging the defendant with computer pornography, attempted aggravated child molestation, and attempted child molestation arising from an Internet sting operation, the appellate court erred by finding that a second indictment was insufficient to withstand a special demurrer because the indictment identified the victim by the only name which the defendant knew the intended victim by and informed the defendant that the intended victim was not an actual child. State v. Grube, 293 Ga. 257, 744 S.E.2d 1 (2013).
- Trial court erred by granting the defendant's special demurrer and quashing the indictment charging obscene Internet contact with a child because the indictment identified the victim by the name known to the defendant and informed the defendant that it was someone defendant thought was a 14-year-old girl, which was sufficient, and that the victim may also have been a fictitious persona created by an undercover officer was a fact to be proved at trial and its absence was not a material defect. State v. Cohron, 324 Ga. App. 137, 749 S.E.2d 416 (2013).
- Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in ruling that whether the defendant would have committed the crime charged absent the inducement of law enforcement officers was a question for the jury without the assistance of expert opinion evidence because expert testimony that a defendant does not have the psychological characteristics of a person who is predisposed to having sexual contact with under-aged children invades the province of the jury as to the ultimate issue. Lopez v. State, 326 Ga. App. 770, 757 S.E.2d 436 (2014).
- Because the offenses of criminal attempt to commit child molestation and computer child exploitation each required proof of a fact the other did not, the trial court did not err in sentencing the defendant on both convictions. Brown v. State, 321 Ga. App. 798, 743 S.E.2d 474 (2013).
Cited in Barton v. State, 286 Ga. App. 49, 648 S.E.2d 660 (2007); Castaneira v. State, 321 Ga. App. 418, 740 S.E.2d 400 (2013).
- Validity of state statutes and administrative regulations regulating internet communications under commerce clause and First Amendment of federal constitution, 98 A.L.R.5th 167.
Validity, construction, and application of state statutes prohibiting child luring as applied to cases involving luring of child by means of verbal or other nonelectronic communications, 35 A.L.R.6th 361.
Total Results: 10
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-06-22
Snippet: of a felony . . . .”). 68 See OCGA § 16-12-100.2 (e) (1) (“A person commits the offense of obscene
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-06-21
Snippet: Section 16-6-4, 16-6-5, 16-12-100, 16-12-100.2, or 16-12-100.3; (2) Any crime
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-11-30
Citation: 300 Ga. 312, 794 S.E.2d 613, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 780
Snippet: child exploitation in violation of Code Section 16-12-100.2; (xviii) Obscene telephone contact in violation
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-07-05
Citation: 299 Ga. 568, 788 S.E.2d 468, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 460
Snippet: and Child Exploitation Prevention Act, OCGA § 16-12-100.2, which criminalizes the offense of “obscene Internet
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-03-21
Citation: 298 Ga. 675, 784 S.E.2d 392, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 242
Snippet: obscene Internet contact with a child, see OCGA § 16-12-100.2 (e) (l), 5 andfor this felony, he
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-11-02
Citation: 298 Ga. 20, 779 S.E.2d 263, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 790
Snippet: and child exploitation in violation of OCGA § 16-12-100.2 (d) (1) (Count 1) and of electronically furnishing
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-04-22
Citation: 295 Ga. 76, 757 S.E.2d 819, 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 1065, 2014 WL 1584512, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 290
Snippet: and Child Exploitation Prevention Act,” OCGA § 16-12-100.2, prior to the statute’s amendment in 2013. That
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2013-06-03
Citation: 293 Ga. 257, 744 S.E.2d 1, 13 Fulton County D. Rep. 1693, 2013 WL 2371789, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 487
Snippet: molestation. See OCGA § 16-6-4 (a) and (c); OCGA § 16-12-100.2 (d). The trial court determined all three counts
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2008-07-11
Citation: 664 S.E.2d 211, 284 Ga. 181, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 2402, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 622
Snippet: exploitation of children in violation of OCGA § 16-12-100.2’ was sufficient”); Maddox v. State, 272 Ga. App
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2007-09-24
Citation: 651 S.E.2d 55, 282 Ga. 412, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 2958, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 585
Snippet: Exploitation Prevention Act of 1999, OCGA § 16-12-100.2 (utilizing a computer on-line service to solicit