Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 18-1509A (2026)

Enticing a child through use of the internet or other communication device — Penalties — Jurisdiction. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Enticing a child through use of the internet or other communication device — Penalties — Jurisdiction. 

(1) A person aged eighteen (18) years or older shall be guilty of a felony if such person knowingly uses the internet or any device that provides transmission of messages, signals, facsimiles, video images or other communication to solicit, seduce, lure, persuade or entice by words or actions, or both, a person under the age of sixteen (16) years or a person the defendant believes to be under the age of sixteen (16) years to engage in any sexual act with or against the person where such act would be a violation of chapter 15, 61 or 66, title 18, Idaho Code.

(2)   Any person who is convicted of a violation of this section shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) years.
(3)  It shall not constitute a defense against any charge or violation of this section that a law enforcement officer, peace officer, or other person working at the direction of law enforcement was involved in the detection or investigation of a violation of this section.
(4)  In a prosecution under this section, it is not necessary for the prosecution to show that an act described in chapter 15, 61 or 66, title 18, Idaho Code, actually occurred.
(5)  The offense is committed in the state of Idaho for purposes of determining jurisdiction if the transmission that constitutes the offense either originates in or is received in the state of Idaho.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: State v. Cartwright, 487 P.3d 737 (Idaho 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cartwright, 487 P.3d 737 (Idaho 2021). · cites it 53× “Procedural History The State charged Cartwright by superseding indictment with felony enticing a child through use of the internet, under Idaho Code section 18-1509A. Cartwright entered a plea of not guilty.”
State v. Glass, 190 P.3d 896 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 17× “Glass also moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the state had failed to present sufficient evidence that Glass had acted in contravention of I.C. § 18-1509A. The motion was denied and the defense rested without presenting further evidence.”
State v. Bruce E. Reed, 294 P.3d 1132 (Idaho Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 18× “” Reed posits that the crime defined in I.C. § 18-1509A, as it existed at the time he was charged, required something more than online communications in which sexual acts were invited.”
Wolf v. State, 266 P.3d 1169 (Idaho Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Wolf was charged with enticing children over the Internet, I.C. § 18-1509A, and possession of sexually exploitative material, I.”
State v. Arthur Gene Schmierer, 367 P.3d 163 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 2× “1 The Superseding Indictment charged Schmierer with one count of enticing children over the internet under Idaho Code section 18-1509A (Count I) and one count of attempted lewd conduct with a minor under the age of sixteen under Idaho Code sections 18-306 and 18-1508 (Count II).”
State v. Brandon Briggs, 404 P.3d 1287 (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “§§ 18-1606(1)(b) 1 and 18-112A; and (4) enticing a child through the use of the Internet or other communication device, felony, I.C. § 18-1509A, The district court consolidated the cases.”
State v. Ephraim, 267 P.3d 1291 (Idaho Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 18-1509A. Thereafter, the state filed Part II of the information alleging that Ephraim had been previously convicted of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen.”
State v. Smith (Idaho Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8× “FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Smith was charged with enticing a child through use of the internet or other communication devices in violation of I.C. § 18-1509A. Smith initiated conversations with two different online personas (Chloe and Hannah) that were actually a federal…”
State v. Shawn Paul Beery (Idaho Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 18-1509A. In District Court Case No.”
State v. Riley Michael Beck (Idaho Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 18-1509A. Beck filed a motion to exempt himself from the sex offender 1 registration requirements set forth in I.”
State v. Grove (Idaho Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Samuel Bruce Grove pled guilty to enticement of a child through the internet or other communication…”
State v. Martens (Idaho Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 18-1509A. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Martens pled guilty to enticement of a child through the use of the internet or other communication device, and the State agreed to recommend a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 18-1509A(1) — 4 cases
State v. Bruce E. Reed, 294 P.3d 1132 (Idaho Ct. App. 2012). “” Reed posits that the crime defined in I.C. § 18-1509A, as it existed at the time he was charged, required something more than online communications in which sexual acts were invited.”
State v. Glass, 190 P.3d 896 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008). “Glass also moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the state had failed to present sufficient evidence that Glass had acted in contravention of I.C. § 18-1509A. The motion was denied and the defense rested without presenting further evidence.”
State v. Cartwright, 487 P.3d 737 (Idaho 2021). “Procedural History The State charged Cartwright by superseding indictment with felony enticing a child through use of the internet, under Idaho Code section 18-1509A. Cartwright entered a plea of not guilty.”
State of Idaho v. Christopher Daniel Hayes (Idaho Ct. App. 2026).
— Idaho Code § 18-1509A(4) — 2 cases
State v. Bruce E. Reed, 294 P.3d 1132 (Idaho Ct. App. 2012). “” Reed posits that the crime defined in I.C. § 18-1509A, as it existed at the time he was charged, required something more than online communications in which sexual acts were invited.”
State v. Smith (Idaho Ct. App. 2024). “FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Smith was charged with enticing a child through use of the internet or other communication devices in violation of I.C. § 18-1509A. Smith initiated conversations with two different online personas (Chloe and Hannah) that were actually a federal…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.