(1) A person commits the offense of enticement by electronic communication device if he or she is nineteen years of age or over and knowingly and intentionally utilizes an electronic communication device to contact a child under sixteen years of age or a peace officer who is believed by such person to be a child under sixteen years of age and in so doing:
(a) Uses or transmits any indecent, lewd, lascivious, or obscene language, writing, or sound;
(b) Transmits or otherwise disseminates any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or
(c) Offers or solicits any indecent, lewd, or lascivious act.
(2) Enticement by electronic communication device is a Class IV felony.
(3) Enticement by electronic communication device is deemed to have been committed either at the place where the communication was initiated or where it was received.
(4) For purposes of this section:
(a) Electronic communication device means any device which, in its ordinary and intended use, transmits by electronic means writings, sounds, visual images, or data of any nature to another electronic communication device;
(b) Sexually explicit conduct has the same meaning as in section 28-1802; and
(c) Visual depiction has the same meaning as in section 28-1802.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case:
State v. Thomas, 932 N.W.2d 713 (Neb. 2019).
State v. Thomas, 932 N.W.2d 713 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 30× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-833 (Reissue 2016) (enticement by electronic communication device).”
State v. Paez, 925 N.W.2d 75 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 12× “Because the district court failed to instruct the jury in a manner that required it to consider whether Paez knew A.”
State v. Graham, 271 N.W.2d 456 (Neb. 1978).
· cites it 6× “1943, provides in part: "(1) Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable if: "(a) The harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the…”
State v. Hines, 985 N.W.2d 625 (Neb. 2023).
· cites it 2× “The district court sentenced him to a term of 15 to 30 years’ imprisonment on the first conviction and 23 to 24 months’ imprisonment on the second.”
Doe v. Nebraska, 734 F. Supp. 2d 882 (D. Neb. 2010).
· cites it 2× “02; (j) Enticement by electronic communication device pursuant to section 28-833; or (k) An attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense listed in subdivisions (l)(a) through (l)(j) of this section.”
Doe v. Nebraska, 898 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (D. Neb. 2012).
· cites it 2× “02; (j) Enticement by electronic communication device pursuant to section 28-833; or (k) An attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense listed in subdivisions (l)(a) through (l)(j) of this section.”
State v. Schroeder, 261 N.W.2d 759 (Neb. 1978).
· cites it 2× “1943, which is a part of the self-defense statute enacted in 1972, provides as follows: "(1) Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable if: "(a) The harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater…”
State v. Ralls, 223 N.W.2d 432 (Neb. 1974).
· cites it 2× “33, together with several paragraphs extracted almost verbatim from the statutory provisions on self-defense in sections 28-833 through 28-836, R.S.Supp.”
State v. Lamberson, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 642 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Stat § 28-319(1) (Reissue 2016) provides: “Any person who subjects another person to sexual penetration .”
State v. Thomas, 303 Neb. 964 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 30× “§ 28-833 (Reissue 2016) (enticement by electronic communication device). 2 Brief for appellant at 18.”
State v. Lamberson, 921 N.W.2d 879 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “by means of an electronic communication device as that term is defined in section 28-833, to engage in an act which would be in violation of section 28-319.”
State v. Paez, 302 Neb. 676 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 13× “- 678 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-833(1): 5 cases
State v. Thomas, 932 N.W.2d 713 (Neb. 2019).
“See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-833 (Reissue 2016) (enticement by electronic communication device).”
State v. Paez, 925 N.W.2d 75 (Neb. 2019).
“Because the district court failed to instruct the jury in a manner that required it to consider whether Paez knew A.”
State v. Paez, 302 Neb. 676 (Neb. 2019).
“- 678 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v.”
State v. Thomas, 303 Neb. 964 (Neb. 2019).
“§ 28-833 (Reissue 2016) (enticement by electronic communication device). 2 Brief for appellant at 18.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-833(2): 3 cases
State v. Paez, 925 N.W.2d 75 (Neb. 2019).
“Because the district court failed to instruct the jury in a manner that required it to consider whether Paez knew A.”
State v. Paez, 302 Neb. 676 (Neb. 2019).
“- 678 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v.”
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.