State of Arizona Ex Rel. Polk v. Hon. campbell/francis Frederick Kraps
239 Ariz. 405, 372 P.3d 929, 2016 WL 2908237 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The enhanced and consecutive sentencing provisions for child prostitution under A.R.S. § 13-3212 apply to a defendant convicted of engaging in prostitution with a person the defendant knows to be a minor, even when that 'minor' is an undercover peace officer.
Facts:
- Francis Kraps was at least eighteen years of age.
- Kraps allegedly engaged in acts of prostitution with two individuals on separate occasions.
- Kraps believed these individuals were sixteen-year-old girls.
- In reality, the individuals Kraps engaged with were adult undercover police officers posing as minors.
Procedural Posture:
- The State indicted Francis Kraps in the superior court (trial court) on two counts of child prostitution.
- Kraps filed a motion asking the trial court to rule that the statute's enhanced and consecutive sentencing provisions did not apply because the 'minors' were undercover officers.
- The superior court granted Kraps's motion, ruling that the enhanced penalties apply only when actual minors are involved.
- At the State's request, the superior court stayed the case to permit the State to seek special action review from the court of appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling, holding that the enhanced sentencing provisions do apply.
- Kraps (as petitioner) petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court (highest court) for review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the enhanced and consecutive sentencing provisions of A.R.S. § 13-3212 apply when a defendant is convicted of engaging in child prostitution with an undercover peace officer posing as a minor aged fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Timmer
Yes. The enhanced and consecutive sentencing provisions of A.R.S. § 13-3212 apply when a defendant is convicted of engaging in child prostitution with an undercover peace officer posing as a minor. Although the term 'minor' is ambiguous in the sentencing subsections, legislative intent supports this application. The legislature simultaneously created the substantive offense, provided that it is no defense that the 'minor' is a peace officer, and enacted the enhanced sentencing scheme without creating a separate, lesser penalty for sting operations. The absence of an alternative sentencing structure indicates the legislature intended the enhanced penalties to apply to all convictions under the specified subsection, thereby focusing on the defendant's culpable mental state of intending to engage in prostitution with a minor.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal foundation for police sting operations targeting child prostitution by ensuring that offenders face the same severe penalties regardless of whether the victim is a real minor or an undercover officer. It reinforces the principle that criminal culpability is determined by the defendant's 'mens rea' (guilty mind), not the actual status of the other party in such cases. The ruling deters the act of soliciting a minor for prostitution itself and prevents defendants from escaping the statute's harshest consequences through the fortuity of being caught in a sting operation.
