State v. Primm, COA23-949, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Jun. 4, 2024)

In this Iredell County case, defendant appealed his conviction for solicitation of a child by an electronic device, arguing he did not know the victim was under sixteen years old. The Court of Appeals found no error. 

In September of 2019, defendant exchanged snapchat messages with a fourteen-year-old girl he had met when he was giving a roofing estimate to her parents. Defendant’s messages to the girl became sexually explicit, and he set up a time to meet with her, driving to her home. At that point, the girl became scared and told her parents, who called police to report the situation. Defendant never met with the victim, but snapchat messages were later retrieved from her phone and used by officers in the investigation. Defendant moved to dismiss the charges, arguing insufficient evidence was admitted that he knew the victim’s age before traveling to meet her, but the trial court denied the motion. 

Taking up defendant’s argument, the Court of Appeals explained substantial evidence, both circumstantial and direct, supported denial of defendant’s motion. Circumstantially, defendant knew that the girl was taking dual-enrollment community college classes while still in high school. For direct evidence, the girl messaged defendant that she was under fourteen after she went into her parents’ room to tell them of the situation, and in her message, she asked defendant if that was a problem. Defendant responded “naw,” which was ambiguous, but the court explained “in the light most favorable to the State, Defendant’s response indicated he did not care that [the victim] was fourteen and chose to proceed with the plan to meet with her to engage in sexual activity regardless of her age.” Slip op. at 10.