19 and 16 year old. RCW 9.68A.090

[Jayde1992]

I'm 19 and my ex is 16. Her parents want to take me to court on RCW 9.68A.090 (communications with a minor for immoral purposes.) I know it's legal for her and I to actually HAVE sex, but what about this? Do they have a case?

We live in Washington by the way.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Proserpina]

Short answer: Perhaps.

Which part of "don't come near our daughter" didn't you listen to? Do you understand that even though you can legally have intercourse, you can be legally barred from even calling her, right up until she's 18?

(Restraining orders aren't fun on your record)

 

[Jayde1992]

I'm well aware I might get a restraining order (which is terrible, I really like this girl.) I want to know if they have a case for jail time.

 

[CurrentlyUndone]

I'm well aware I might get a restraining order (which is terrible, I really like this girl.) I want to know if they have a case for jail time.

Since she's your ex, but you still REALLY like her, is it safe to assume that she dumped you? Respect that decision and move on.

 

[mistoffolees]

I'm well aware I might get a restraining order (which is terrible, I really like this girl.) I want to know if they have a case for jail time.

It's a class C felony which means up to 5 years in jail:
RCW 9.68a.090: Communication with minor for immoral purposes ? Penalties.

Whether they have a case? Since none of us has seen the evidence they plan to present, nor do we know how the judge is likely to react, it's impossible for us to say.

With a charge that could lead to up to 5 years in jail, you need an attorney. Meanwhile, stay away from the girl. No contact at all. Your attorney may try to negotiate with the prosecutor to agree for you to stay away from the girl in exchange for the charges being dropped - perhaps while pleading to a lesser charge, but that's really something you need to discuss with your attorney.

 

[Alex1176]

I'm 19 and my ex is 16. Her parents want to take me to court on RCW 9.68A.090 (communications with a minor for immoral purposes.) I know it's legal for her and I to actually HAVE sex, but what about this? Do they have a case?

We live in Washington by the way.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

If the communications occurred before she turned 16, the chances for a case are greater, IMHO. After she turned 16 (age of consent) consensual sexting may not be considered as immoral.
But, my personal advise is very simple: Stay away from minors. It's not worth it.

 

[Jayde1992]

All contact with her was while she was 16. The evidence they have are chat logs from Facebook, where we talked about having sex at some point and did some mild sexting. The legal age of consent here is 16, with a 48 month distance for anyone above 16 to have sex with the minor. (So a 16 year old could have sex with a 20 year old.) I'm still not sure if this is them trying to scare me or not.

My thinking is this: If her and I could legally have sex, then the conversation shouldn't be labeled as "Immoral." Am I on the correct line of thought?

 

[>Charlotte<]

RCW 9.68A.090
Communication with minor for immoral purposes — Penalties.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.090

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes, or a person who communicates with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral purposes, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

(2) A person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes is guilty of a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW if the person has previously been convicted under this section or of a felony sexual offense under chapter 9.68A, 9A.44, or 9A.64 RCW or of any other felony sexual offense in this or any other state or if the person communicates with a minor or with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral purposes through the sending of an electronic communication.

--And--

RCW 9.68A.011
Definitions.

(5) "Minor" means any person under eighteen years of age.


The code under which you have been charged and the definition of "minor" within that code don't appear to consider the separate code(s) regarding the age of sexual consent.

I'd say you're on the hook for the gross misdemeanor, but not the felony (assuming a lack of necessary qualifications).

 

[mistoffolees]

RCW 9.68A.090
Communication with minor for immoral purposes — Penalties.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.090

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes, or a person who communicates with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral purposes, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

(2) A person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes is guilty of a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW if the person has previously been convicted under this section or of a felony sexual offense under chapter 9.68A, 9A.44, or 9A.64 RCW or of any other felony sexual offense in this or any other state or if the person communicates with a minor or with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral purposes through the sending of an electronic communication.

--And--

RCW 9.68A.011
Definitions.

(5) "Minor" means any person under eighteen years of age.


The code under which you have been charged and the definition of "minor" within that code don't appear to consider the separate code(s) regarding the age of sexual consent.

I'd say you're on the hook for the gross misdemeanor, but not the felony (assuming a lack of necessary qualifications).

It's pretty hard to rule out the felony since we don't know what was communicated. If their communications fell under "if the person communicates with a minor or with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral purposes through the sending of an electronic communication", then it could be a felony. And 'immoral purposes' can be fairly broad for some judges.

 

[Alex1176]

It's pretty hard to rule out the felony since we don't know what was communicated. If their communications fell under "if the person communicates with a minor or with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral purposes through the sending of an electronic communication", then it could be a felony. And 'immoral purposes' can be fairly broad for some judges.

Can "immoral purposes" be something that is not illegal? I think that this is the key for this case.

 

[>Charlotte<]

It's pretty hard to rule out the felony...

I read "if the person communicates..." as a qualifier of the last "any other felony sexual offense" part, rather than a separate issue. Missed the "or".

Yes, that makes it a little scarier.

But now I'm noticing, Jayde, that you said they "want" to take you to court on that code. Not that they've actually pursued the charge. If it's simply the former at this point, perhaps they're just trying to scare you away. If that's the case you should consider it an excellent opportunity to stay out of potentially serious trouble, and stay away from their child. We can debate the intentions of the code all day long, but the only test that will matter to you is if it's tested in a court of law, at which point your ass will be on the line instead of your computer chair.

 

[mistoffolees]

Can "immoral purposes" be something that is not illegal? I think that this is the key for this case.

Yes. Clearly, some things are immoral but not illegal - particularly when it involves an adult and a child.

 

[Alex1176]

Yes. Clearly, some things are immoral but not illegal - particularly when it involves an adult and a child.

I am talking about the legal definition of "immoral purposes".
I made some research:
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. TERISA MAE MONTOYA, Appellant.
"Neither RCW 9.68A.090, nor chapter 9.68A RCW explicitly define "immoral purposes," but Washington case law has determined "immoral purposes" refers to sexual misconduct, and "communicate" includes conduct as well as words."

So now we see that "immoral purposes" is "sexual misconduct". Does legal sexual action can fall in to a legal definition of "sexual misconduct"?

I really trying to understand this, because it's seems very strange that a guy can legally have sex with a girl, but can not talk with her about it.

 

[mistoffolees]

I am talking about the legal definition of "immoral purposes".
I made some research:
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. TERISA MAE MONTOYA, Appellant.
"Neither RCW 9.68A.090, nor chapter 9.68A RCW explicitly define "immoral purposes," but Washington case law has determined "immoral purposes" refers to sexual misconduct, and "communicate" includes conduct as well as words."

So now we see that "immoral purposes" is "sexual misconduct". Does legal sexual action can fall in to a legal definition of "sexual misconduct"?

I really trying to understand this, because it's seems very strange that a guy can legally have sex with a girl, but can not talk with her about it.

You're defining 'immoral purposes' too narrowly.

LEGALLY, a guy can have sex with a girl. But if the parents object, then that may be considered immoral. Furthermore, your definition is circular. What constitutes 'sexual misconduct'? Arguably, going against the parents wishes might fit that definition.

There is more case history on "Immoral purposes", though:
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. TERISA MAE MONTOYA, Appellant.

in State v. Schimmelpfennig, 92 Wn.2d 95, 103, 594 P.2d 442 (1979), the Washington Supreme Court determined that "immoral purposes" is a rather broad area of sexual misconduct, and that a strict item-by-item detail is not necessary

It is clear that "immoral purposes" is NOT limited to sex between the two parties:

Jury Instruction No. 6 states the following: "A person commits the crime of communication with a minor for immoral purposes when that person communicates with a minor for immoral purposes of a sexual nature. Communication may be by words or conduct." RP at 186.

Jury Instruction No. 7 states the following: "'Minor' means any person under eighteen years of age." RP at 186.

Jury Instruction No. 8 states the following: "Immoral purposes includes promoting the exposure of minors to sexual misconduct and promoting the involvement of minors in sexual misconduct."

I would suggest that you read the above article. Many of the charges that Montoya was convicted of were NOT sexual in nature. For example, one of the charges that was upheld was a 'tight hug' where the people (fully clothed) hugged each other tightly and intertwined their legs. Clearly, intercourse does not need to occur for a conviction in this statute - since intercourse did not occur in ANY of the charges.

 

[Alex1176]

You're defining 'immoral purposes' too narrowly.

I am trying to define a legal definition of this term.

LEGALLY, a guy can have sex with a girl. But if the parents object, then that may be considered immoral. Furthermore, your definition is circular. What constitutes 'sexual misconduct'? Arguably, going against the parents wishes might fit that definition.

Sure, because we are entering into some other crimes like "interfering with parenting rights" and "Contributing to the delinquency of a minor". But in this case OP did not say that the parents expressed their resistance during the relationship.

There is more case history on "Immoral purposes", though:
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. TERISA MAE MONTOYA, Appellant.



It is clear that "immoral purposes" is NOT limited to sex between the two parties:


I would suggest that you read the above article. Many of the charges that Montoya was convicted of were NOT sexual in nature. For example, one of the charges that was upheld was a 'tight hug' where the people (fully clothed) hugged each other tightly and intertwined their legs. Clearly, intercourse does not need to occur for a conviction in this statute - since intercourse did not occur in ANY of the charges.

Illegal sex is not the only sexual offence, off course. "Tight hug" between minors at the same age may not be a sexual offence. What making it an offence is the sexual satisfaction of the adult from the behavior of two minors under 16 years old, that he caused.

My point is that it will be hard to prove "immoral purposes" for something that is not illegal. It's just not making any sense that a guy can legally have sex with a girl, but can not sext to her.