Colorado § 18-3-405.4 - Internet sexual exploitation of a child.

§ 18-3-405.4. Internet sexual exploitation of a child.

(1) An actor commits internet sexual exploitation of a child if the actor knowingly importunes, invites, or entices through communication via a computer network or system, telephone network, or data network or by a text message or instant message, a person whom the actor knows or believes to be under fifteen years of age and at least four years younger than the actor, to:

(a) Expose or touch the person's own or another person's intimate parts while communicating with the actor via a computer network or system, telephone network, or data network or by a text message or instant message; or

(b) Observe the actor's intimate parts via a computer network or system, telephone network, or data network or by a text message or instant message.

(2) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2009, (HB 09-1163), ch. 343, p. 1797, § 1, effective July 1, 2009.)

(3) Internet sexual exploitation of a child is a class 4 felony.

Source: L. 2006: Entire section added, p. 2056, § 5, effective July 1. L. 2009: Entire section amended, (HB 09-1163), ch. 343, p. 1797, § 1, effective July 1; (1) amended, (HB 09-1132), ch. 341, p. 1793, § 3, effective July 1.

Editor's note: Amendments to subsection (1) by House Bill 09-1163 and House Bill 09-1132 were harmonized.

ANNOTATION

Internet child exploitation does not violate the dormant commerce clause. People v. Helms, 2016 COA 90, 396 P.3d 1133.

Internet child exploitation is not unconstitutionally overbroad. The crime does not punish a substantial amount of protected speech. People v. Helms, 2016 COA 90, 396 P.3d 1133.

Internet child exploitation is not unconstitutionally vague. The elements are clear and defendant offered no example of how the statute was capable of more than one interpretation. People v. Helms, 2016 COA 90, 396 P.3d 1133.

"Importuning, inviting, or enticing" requires a defendant to do more than allow a viewer to continue viewing the defendant's intimate parts after the defendant comes to know or believe that the viewer is younger than 15 years old. People v. Heywood, 2014 COA 99, 357 P.3d 201.

Convictions for internet luring of a child and internet sexual exploitation of a child under a complicity theory vacated because prosecution failed to prove that defendant committed the crimes or that defendant acted as an accomplice to a principal who committed the crimes. People v. Douglas, 2012 COA 57, 296 P.3d 234.

Defendant's request to send him pictures of a sex act that he thought were taken during a previous communication does not constitute an attempt to persuade a child to engage in a sex act "while communicating" with the defendant. Defendant's conviction cannot be sustained on that evidence. People v. Helms, 2016 COA 90, 396 P.3d 1133.