(a) Offense. - A person is guilty of solicitation of a child by a computer if the person is 16 years of age or older and the person knowingly, with the intent to commit an unlawful sex act, entices, advises, coerces, orders, or commands, by means of a computer or any other device capable of electronic data storage or transmission, any of the following:
(1) A child who is less than 16 years of age and at least five years younger than the defendant to meet with the defendant or any other person for the purpose of committing an unlawful sex act.
(2) A person the defendant believes to be a child who is less than 16 years of age and who the defendant believes to be at least five years younger than the defendant, to meet with the defendant or any other person for the purpose of committing an unlawful sex act.
(3) A person the defendant believes to be the parent, guardian, or caretaker of a child who is less than 16 years of age and who the defendant believes to be at least five years younger than the defendant, to meet with the defendant or any other person for the purpose of committing an unlawful sex act.
(b) Jurisdiction. - The offense is committed in the State for purposes of determining jurisdiction, if the transmission that constitutes the offense either originates in the State or is received in the State.
(c) Punishment. - A violation of this section is punishable as follows:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a first violation of this section is a Class G felony. A second or subsequent violation of this section, or a first violation of this section committed when the defendant had a prior conviction in any federal or state court in the United States that is substantially similar to the offense set forth in this section, is a Class E felony.
(2) If either the defendant, or any other person for whom the defendant was arranging the meeting in violation of this section, actually appears at the meeting location, then the violation is a Class D felony.
(d) Consent not a Defense. - Consent is not a defense to a charge under this section. (1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 632, s. 1; 2005-121, s. 1; 2008-218, s. 5; 2009-336, s. 1; 2024-37, s. 2(f); 2025-70, s. 3(a).)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case:
State v. Grady, 831 S.E.2d 542 (N.C. 2019).
State v. Grady, 831 S.E.2d 542 (N.C. 2019).
· cites it 6× “See N.C.G.S. § 14-202.3 (2017); State v. Fraley, 202 N.”
State v. Fraley, 688 S.E.2d 778 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 10× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.3 (a) (2007). 2 *463 In the instant case, defendant was 32 years old and Cassia stated she was 14 years of age.”
Vijaya Boggala v. Jefferson Sessions III, 866 F.3d 563 (4th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 5× “Boggala was charged by criminal information with soliciting a child by computer to commit an unlawful sex act in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.3 (a). On August 14, 2012, Boggala and his attorney met with the prosecutor.”
State v. Morse, 671 S.E.2d 538 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 17× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.3 (2005) (emphasis added).”
Doe 1 v. Cooper, 842 F.3d 833 (4th Cir. 2016).
“John Doe #4 was convicted in 2007 of attempted solicitation of a minor, a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.3 . He received a suspended sentence of thirty months, spent ten weekends in intermittent confinement, and completed thirty months of probation.”
State v. Heelan, 823 S.E.2d 106 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “1 , and for solicitation of a child by computer and appearing, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.3 . The undisputed trial evidence showed the following facts.”
Does 1-5 v. Cooper, 40 F. Supp. 3d 657 (M.D.N.C. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff John Doe 4 was convicted in 2007 of attempted solicitation of a minor in violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-202.3. He received a suspended sentence of 30 months, served 10 weekends in prison as an intermediate punishment, and completed a 30-month term of probation.”
State v. Ellis, 657 S.E.2d 51 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 9× “Defendant contends that there was no probable cause to believe that defendant violated or attempted to vio *823 late N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.1 and former N.C.”
Does v. Cooper, 148 F. Supp. 3d 477 (M.D.N.C. 2015).
· cites it 2× “) 4 Plaintiff John Doe 4 was convicted in 2007 of attempted solicitation of a minor in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.3 . He received a suspended sentence of 30 months, served 10 weekends in prison as an intermediate punishment, and completed a 30-month term of probation.”
State v. Shuping (N.C. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 18× “Defendant Joseph Barrier Shuping appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty of, inter alia, solicitation of a child by computer pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 14-202.3(a). On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable juror to believe he…”
State v. Packingham, 748 S.E.2d 146 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, we conclude that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.5 is unconstitutionally vague on its face and overbroad as applied.”
State v. Keller (N.C. 2020).
· cites it 12× “On 10 August 2015 defendant was indicted under N.C.G.S. § 14-202.3 for solicitation by computer or electronic device of a person believed to be fifteen years of age or younger for the purpose of committing an unlawful sexual act and appearing -5- STATE V.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.3(a) — 5 cases
State v. Shuping (N.C. Ct. App. 2026).
“Defendant Joseph Barrier Shuping appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty of, inter alia, solicitation of a child by computer pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 14-202.3(a). On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable juror to believe he…”
State v. Keller (N.C. 2020).
“On 10 August 2015 defendant was indicted under N.C.G.S. § 14-202.3 for solicitation by computer or electronic device of a person believed to be fifteen years of age or younger for the purpose of committing an unlawful sexual act and appearing -5- STATE V.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.3(a)(2) — 1 case
State v. Shuping (N.C. Ct. App. 2026).
“Defendant Joseph Barrier Shuping appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty of, inter alia, solicitation of a child by computer pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 14-202.3(a). On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable juror to believe he…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.3(c)(2) — 2 cases
State v. Keller (N.C. 2020).
“On 10 August 2015 defendant was indicted under N.C.G.S. § 14-202.3 for solicitation by computer or electronic device of a person believed to be fifteen years of age or younger for the purpose of committing an unlawful sexual act and appearing -5- 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.