State v. James R. Pischel

As part of his duties, a police officer created a profile for a 15-year-old female with the screen name ljb92. On March 7, 2007, James Pischel (defendant), whose screen name was lincolnpietaster, communicated online with ljb92. Ljb92 indicated she was 15; Pischel responded she was too young for him; and ljb92 replied, “Whatever.” Pischel instant-messaged ljb92 on June 1. Ljb92 said she was 15, photographs were exchanged, and Pischel told ljb92 to let him know if she was “ever looking for some fun” and he was “always looking for pussy to eat.” Pischel confirmed he was “really offering” as long as ljb92 was “not a cop trying to bust [him] for sex with a minor.” Ljb92 denied being an officer. Pischel asked whether ljb92 wanted to engage in certain sexual activities and wanted him to come over. Pischel proposed a meeting place but decided against meeting that day. Ljb92 expressed disappointment and sent Pischel an anger emoticon. The conversation continued and ended with a plan for another chat. Pischel initiated an instant-messaging conversation on June 4 and suggested to ljb92 that she invite him over to “eat” her. Pischel and ljb92 agreed to meet in a park. Pischel was arrested near the park and charged with using a computer to entice a child or a peace officer believed to be a child to engage in sexual activity. Pischel was convicted. On appeal, Pischel argued in part that the trial court erred in denying his request for an entrapment instruction.