This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
The Utah Court of Appeals — in a 2-1 ruling — reversed a conviction last week against a woman who three years ago agreed to conduct a sex act for money.
The then-25-year-old woman pleaded no contest in 4th District Court to sexual solicitation, a class A misdemeanor, and possession of a controlled substance, a third degree felony, in 2014 on the condition she could appeal the district court's ruling.
A detective came across the woman's online ad for escort services in 2013 and called her, posing as a customer and asking her to meet him at a motel. He requested that she wear a short skirt without underwear and "perform with [a] sex toy" while he "watch[ed]," court documents state.
The woman agreed to the request and said she would charge $250 for thirty minutes or $300 for one hour, according to court documents. She also asked that the caller "pitch in a little bit for gas money" and told him he could "tip for whatever it was worth" to him.
Upon arrival at the motel, police arrested the woman and found the sex toys in her vehicle, along with a bag of heroin, court documents say.
The district court interpreted the law the woman allegedly broke to mean that "a person agreeing to masturbate so that another may watch, for pleasure and in exchange for money, is participating in a sexual activity with that person."
The appellate court, however, singled out the word "with" in the statute, and the judges ruled that, since the woman agreed to masturbate with a sex toy, she hadn't actually agreed to commit a "sexual activity with another person for a fee."
Though the judges agreed that masturbation is a sexual act, they said in their Friday ruling, that the word "with" can mean either "one that shares in an action," or "accompaniment or companionship."
Judge Gregory Orme interpreted the language in the law to fall under the first definition, and ruled that the woman was, in fact, not guilty. Judge J. Frederic Voros Jr. agreed with the result of Orme's opinion, although he varied somewhat in his reasoning.
Judge Stephen Roth offered a dissenting opinion, stating that "the lead opinion's interpretation unjustifiably focuses on an alternative meaning of the term 'with' ... and, in doing so, misconstrues the legislative intent evinced in the statute's plain meaning."
Roth said that although the language could be more clear, he believed it was more important to take "into account the statute as a whole and its overall goals" rather than focusing "more narrowly on a single word, as the lead opinion's seems to do."
The woman had entered conditional pleas to the charges in 2014, meaning she reserved her right to appeal. Prosecutors had agreed at the time to dismiss the drug conviction if the sexual solicitation conviction was overturned, court documents state.
Twitter: @mnoblenews