State v. Craig

Decision Date10 May 2016
Docket NumberWD 78685
Citation498 S.W.3d 459
Parties State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Christopher D. Craig, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Matthew Radefeld, Clayton, MO Counsel for Appellant.

Daniel McPherson, Jefferson City, MO Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, P.J., James Edward Welsh, and Anthony Rex Gabbert, JJ.

James Edward Welsh
, Judge

Christopher D. Craig appeals the circuit court's judgment convicting him of attempted enticement of a child and attempted statutory rape in the first degree after a bench trial. Craig contends that, because he never took a substantial step to communicate with an actual child or a law enforcement officer masquerading as a child, the circuit court erred in finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempted enticement of a child and attempted statutory rape in the first degree. We affirm the circuit court's judgment.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence established that Detective Mark Stephens of the Platte County Sheriff's Department placed an advertisement on a website called “motherless.com.” According to Stephens, the website is a type of blog that included conversations about deviate sexual topics, such as incest, and is a website known to be visited by child predators. In the advertisement, Stephens used an undercover identity of “Amy and daughter” and said that the 13–year–old daughter was “a handful.”

Craig responded to the advertisement and asked “Amy” if she wanted to talk further. Stephens, posing as Amy, asked Craig to contact him via text message through a Google Voice account that he had set up previously.1 Through this account, on April 25, 2013, Craig texted Amy and asked, “What are your rules? What are you looking for in a man? And how do I know your [sic] not a cop?” Amy responded:

Im not interested in looks job or anything else I dont care. Im looking for someone to teach my daughter not some kid. The rules are I need to be present in the room at all times, i will not be involved and protection must be used. Im not a cop why would a fucking cop be doing this anyway if your not intrested please dont waste my time thats all I ask thank you[.]2

On April 27, 2013, Craig sent Amy a message asking, “I assume you found someone else to help you?” On May 3, 2013, Craig sent Amy another message asking, “Are you still looking for someone to help with your daughter?” Amy replied by asking Craig if he was interested and stating that it had to be by her rules. She told Craig that she would be out of town until the following Monday and wanted to discuss it more on that day. Craig replied that he was interested and that he would abide by her rules. On May 6, 2013, Craig texted Amy asking, “So when do you want to discuss details for me helping you out with your girl?” On May 10, 2013, he asked, “Do you want to just pick a day to do this[?] Like how does your Sunday look?” Amy responded by telling him that things had not been going well and that she would let him know if another time worked. Craig sent Amy additional messages on June 24, June 27, and July 3, 2013, checking in with her to see if things were okay and wishing her luck.

On July 12, 2013, Craig texted Amy and asked, “Is this still a possibility? Or is it not [sic] longer a go?” Amy replied, “Sorry my stupid phone is horrible. She has just had a birthday so she's 13 now[. I]s that still acceptable[? S]he still has had no training.” Craig replied, “That is fine,” and asked “how full of training are you looking for?” He also asked if this training was a surprise for her daughter and if Amy had talked to her daughter about it. Amy told Craig that she had discussed it with her daughter and that she was “fine” with it. Amy further told Craig that she needed to know what Craig felt comfortable teaching her. Craig responded, “The full lesson would be how to please a man properly and would involve all three orifices.” Amy said that she preferred that protection be used, and Craig said, “Yes always protection.” Craig and Amy then proceeded to discuss when and where the training would take place. Amy told Craig that they would make arrangements the following week.

On July 18, 2013, Craig texted Amy asking if she was in town for the week. Amy responded that she was in town and asked him if “next Monday” would work for him. Craig said that date was fine. He asked Amy “what made you think or want to do this?” Amy responded that she thought some experience would be good for her daughter and that she may only be 13 but all her friends [are] experimenting and I prefer her to know about it under my control.” Craig replied, “Well as long as both are cool with it, I am down.” He asked Amy whether she wanted this “to be a full learning experience,” “including how to be safe as possible?” Amy told Craig that she wanted to let her daughter know what she could expect to learn from him. Craig offered to send Amy a list of what he would try to teach her daughter. Amy replied, “Yes, if you can give me some sort of list so I can go over it with her so that she can learn easily.” Amy also said, “Just understand she's 13 and this will be her first experience.” Craig replied, “I understand her age. I will be kind and go easy.” Amy then gave Craig an e-mail address where he could send his list. Amy told him that “Amy” was not her real name and that he should call her daughter “Lisa.” Craig replied that Amy could call him “John.” Amy also told him that they would plan on meeting on “next Monday sometime” and that she would get a room at a hotel near Kansas City International Airport

Later that same day, Craig, using the name John Shane, sent Amy an e-mail that contained a graphic 15–point plan of what he intended to teach Lisa that included instruction on arousing a man, oral sex, sexual intercourse, anal intercourse, and using protection. After Craig sent the e-mail, he confirmed with Amy that she got it. Amy told him that she would text him Monday with details of their meeting place. Craig asked her to e-mail him back with “any additions, questions or things you would like to remove from my list.”

Amy said that she would “look it over and send any questions this weekend.”

On Monday, Craig asked Amy how the list looked, and Amy responded, “I think it's fine. I don't have any probs with it.” Amy told Craig that she “made a reservation at the extended stay by the airport.” Craig expressed a desire to meet in the parking lot and wanted Lisa present when they first met. Amy said that Lisa “seems excited about this.” Craig responded, “Good, I hope to make it very enjoyable.” Amy said that she would check-in at the hotel around 4:00 P.M. Craig told her that he worked until 5:00 P.M. and that he would be driving “a newer blue Chevy.”

Detective Stephens reserved a room at the hotel in the name of his undercover identity. He also set up surveillance teams at the hotel. After Craig texted Amy that he was two minutes away from the hotel, Detective Stephens saw a blue Chevrolet pull into the hotel parking lot a short time later.

A female undercover officer posing as Amy met Craig at the rear door of the hotel. The two went inside the hotel and had a conversation in the hallway. Craig identified himself as “John” and called the undercover officer “Amy.” The undercover officer told Craig that her daughter was upstairs taking a shower. She said that her daughter was a little concerned about the anal sex. She told Craig that her daughter “was up for it,” but may be a little scared and suggested that they just “see how things went.” Craig stated that was okay. The undercover officer asked Craig if it was okay to hold off on the anal sex at first and then maybe work up to it, and Craig responded that he did not mind at all and that it was fine.

Detective Stephens and the surveillance team then entered the hotel and took Craig into custody. Rubber gloves, condoms, and lubricants were found in Craig's car. After being given his Miranda3

warnings, Craig admitted that he was the person who had communicated with Amy, that he had sent the list regarding the training, and that he agreed to meet Amy at the hotel. Craig said that he knew what his intentions were and admitted that he brought the items found in his car “just in case.” He acknowledged that the detective was correct in assuming that something sexual would have happened if Amy and Lisa would have been okay with it.

Craig did not testify or present any evidence at trial. After taking the case under advisement, the circuit court found Craig guilty of attempted enticement of a child and attempted statutory rape. The circuit court sentenced Craig to concurrent sentences of ten years' imprisonment on each count. Craig appeals.

Craig presents an issue of first impression in Missouri. He contends that his convictions for attempted enticement of a child required a communication between himself and an actual child less than 15 years of age or a law enforcement officer masquerading as a child less than 15 years of age. The issue in this case, therefore, is whether a defendant, who does not directly contact a child or a law enforcement officer masquerading as a child, but instead uses an adult intermediary to attempt to persuade, solicit, coax, entice, or lure a child to engage in sexual conduct, is guilty of attempted enticement of a child.

Section 566.151, RSMo

Cum. Supp. 2013, provides:

1. A person at least twenty-one years of age or older commits the crime of enticement of a child if that person persuades, solicits, coaxes, entices, or lures whether by words, actions or through communication via the Internet or any electronic communication, any person who is less than fifteen years of age for the purpose of engaging in sexual conduct.
2. It is not an affirmative defense to a prosecution for a violation of this section that
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Hartwein
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 31, 2022
    ...to commit the offense and took a substantial step towards the completion of the offense. See Section 562.012.1; State v. Craig, 498 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (internal citation omitted). A substantial step is "conduct which is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor's......
  • State v. Demark
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 2, 2019
    ...of the firmness of the actor’s purpose to complete the commission of the offense." § 564.011. See also State v. Craig , 498 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (The mental state prescribed for attempted enticement of a child is that the actor took a substantial step toward persuading, coax......
  • United States v. Lara-Martinez
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 6, 2016
    ...regularly, many times in To Catch a Predator situations like Lara-Martinez identifies. See, e.g. , State v. Craig , 498 S.W.3d 459, 463–64, 2016 WL 2731575, at *3 (Mo. Ct. App. May 10, 2016) ; State v. Anderson , 467 S.W.3d 378, 380–81 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) ; State v. Doubenmier , 444 S.W.3d ......
  • Cayton v. Commonwealth, 2018-CA-000238-MR
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 2019
    ...exact argument while interpreting analogous statutes. State v. Wilson , 128 So.3d 946, 948-49 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) ; State v. Craig , 498 S.W.3d 459, 465 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). For example, the Child Enticement Statute at issue in Craig , 498 S.W.3d at 464-65, provided that:1. A person at leas......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT