State v. A. Lindquist

03/06/2018
DA 16-0538
Case Number: DA 16-0538
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2018 MT 38
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
AREN KRISTIAN LINDQUIST,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. CDC 14-344
Honorable John A. Kutzman, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Gregory D. Birdsong, Birdsong Law Office, PC, Missoula, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, C. Mark Fowler, Assistant
Attorney General, Emily Caton, Student Intern, Helena, Montana
Joshua A. Racki, Cascade County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 10, 2018
Decided: March 6, 2018
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice James Jeremiah Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Defendant Aren Kristjan Lindquist appeals the order from April 13, 2015, by the
Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, denying his motion to dismiss for
entrapment as a matter of law. We address:
Whether the District Court erred in denying Lindquist’s motion to dismiss for
entrapment as a matter of law.
¶2 We affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
¶3 On July 22, 2014, the Internet Crimes against Children Task Force of the Great Falls
Police Department (“Task Force”) posted an advertisement (“Ad”) entitled “B$a$r$r$r$y
L$e$g$a$1 – 18” in the “great falls escorts” subsection of the “great falls adult
entertainment” section of Backpage.com. The Ad included a photograph of a scantily-clad
female, with her face cropped out of the photograph. The text of the Ad read:
Jessica is visiting Great Falls
Independent
Call or text
no blocked or restricted numbers
(406)285-2836
Poster’s age: 18
Location: Great Falls
Shortly after the Ad posted, Lindquist responded to the number listed and initiated the
following text message conversation1 with the Task Force’s undercover officer (“UC”),
posing as pimp:
Lindquist: Hey how’s it going??:-)
1
All the conversations include typographical errors as found in the original transcripts.
2
Lindquist: Saw your add would love to meet up !
UC: u in gfs
Lindquist: In Craig which is close by !
UC: my girls are under 18 is that ok
Lindquist: How old ?
UC: will I have 2 one 12 and one 15 years olds
Lindquist: Do you have pictures ?
UC: I do but I cant sent on my track phone
Lindquist: Ok do you need an e-mail ?
UC: they r pretty
UC: I don’t have a computer
UC: the picture on the ad is real
Lindquist: Ok are you a cop?
UC: no u a fuckin cop what the . . .
UC: call if your interested
¶4 The Task Force searched the number, identified the caller as Lindquist, and applied
for a warrant to record their conversations. Lindquist and the UC arranged to meet later
that night, but when Lindquist did not show up, the UC texted Lindquist that his
appointment would be canceled.
¶5 The following morning, on July 23, 2014, Lindquist replied to the previous night’s
text message and proceeded to arrange another meeting at a motel in Great Falls for later
that day:
Lindquist: Good morning how’s it going?
3
Lindquist: are you around today ?
UC: yes
Lindquist: Ok well I am here in great falls when do you think you will be
around?
UC: I’m here now
UC: I guess you are going to be a no show again
Lindquist: No I am just finishing up my last errand where am I going?
UC: how long?
Lindquist: I am done
UC: do you know where the O’haire is?
Lindquist: Yes
UC: text me when your here
Lindquist: I am here
UC: I’m in room 130
Lindquist: Do I just come in ?
UC: yeah just come to the room
Lindquist: Ok I am here
Once in the motel room, the UC and Lindquist had the following in-person conversation:
UC: Hi come in dude what’s up?
Lindquist: Nothin’ just hanging out
. . .
UC: Have a seat sorry it’s kind of messy um alright so did you want
ok so Kim
Lindquist: Um hum
4
UC: Is that still who you want to go with ur
Lindquist: Um
UC: Ok she’s getting ready
. . .
UC: I just need to know what your plans are and everything
Lindquist: Ok
UC: Just common in the business so
Lindquist: Ok I’m willing to do anything
UC: Ok so I mean ok so I didn’t even know are you planning on
going full force with her are you planning on being anal
anything that we should not got off guard you know what I’m
saying?
Lindquist: Ok
UC: So
Lindquist: like regular
UC: Just regular intercourse or
Lindquist: Yeah
UC: Ok alright cool ok she is super cute she’s excited to meet you
and you want 10 or 15 youth that’s who you want
Lindquist: Yeah
UC: Ok how much time do you want?
Lindquist: Well I don’t I don’t know exactly
UC: Yeah exactly so for a half hour we can do $150
Lindquist: Um k
5
UC: Um if you want less time we can negotiate that for an hour um
with her cause she’s with Kim she’s 15 the one that’s more
experienced she for an hour I’d probably want for you you
probably do $250
Lindquist: Um hum
UC: So it’s up to you like
Lindquist: Um k I didn’t bring money
UC: You didn’t bring any cash with you? Oh k
Lindquist: I didn’t want I didn’t know what the I’ve never done this
UC: Ok well there’s an ATM in the Lobby
. . .
UC: Your call, um if you but dude you have to come with cash
Lindquist: Yeah
UC: You know what I’m saying?
Lindquist: Um hum
UC: But I totally understand if you just wanted to come and meet
me and discuss things like I feel better about that any way
Lindquist: Um hum
UC: Rather than over the phone
Lindquist: Um hum
UC: Cause that can
Lindquist: Yeah
UC: You know what I’m saying because I have to be careful
Lindquist: You’re not a cop or anything?
UC: Uh are you a cop?
6
Lindquist: No
UC: Ok
Lindquist: Are you a cop
UC: No I’m not a fuckin cop
Lindquist: Ok
UC: Alright
Lindquist: Would you tell me if you [inaudible] law enforcement
UC: I’m not and I actually take offence to that so
Lindquist: I’m just
UC: If you are
Lindquist: No
UC: You know I don’t want to have anything to do with you
Lindquist: No I’m not
UC: Because I need to watch out for these girls
. . .
UC: You tell me what you want to do
Lindquist: Um half hour
UC: Half hour ok alright so if you want to go get the money
Lindquist: Um hum ok
UC: And we’ll go from there
. . .
Lindquist left the room to retrieve cash from the ATM. Once he returned and paid the UC
$160, he confirmed he wanted the “older girl” with the following exchange:
7
UC: Ok well she’s 15 just gotta let you know that
Lindquist: Um hum
UC: She has some experience but she is 15 so if you can just be
good to her
Lindquist: Um hum
UC: You know I can I trust you with that?
Lindquist: Um hum
UC: And that’s why I just need a little more detail on what you want
to do with her I’m like mother now
Lindquist: Just regular sex
UC: Regular intercourse
Lindquist: Um hum
UC: Any thing else
Lindquist: [Inaudible]
UC: Ok alright ok um and you want a half hour
Lindquist: Yeah
UC: I don’t have change cause you gave me $160
Lindquist: Um hum
UC: Ok so you cool with that?
Lindquist: Yeah
UC: What I’ll do then I’ll tack on 10 minutes for you
Lindquist: Really
. . .
UC: So you’re planning on intercourse nothing weird
8
Lindquist: Nothing weird
. . .
The UC left the motel room as if to retrieve fifteen-year-old Kim, then another officer
entered the room and arrested Lindquist.
¶6 On August 6, 2014, the State charged Lindquist with felony Attempted Prostitution,
in violation of §§ 45-4-103 and 45-5-601(3), MCA. On November 7, 2014, Lindquist filed
a motion to dismiss, asserting the affirmative defense of entrapment. On April 13, 2015,
the District Court denied Lindquist’s motion to dismiss for entrapment as a matter of law,
holding that the record reflected conflicting facts as to the origination of criminal intent
and Lindquist’s state of mind that made submitting the issue of entrapment to a jury proper.
On February 23, 2016, following two trial continuances, Lindquist reached a plea
agreement with the State and pled guilty. On July 5, 2016, the District Court sentenced
Lindquist to the Department of Corrections for twenty-five years with twenty years
suspended and designated him as a Tier 1 sexual offender. Lindquist timely appeals the
District Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss on the grounds of entrapment as a matter
of law.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶7 The denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss in a criminal case is a question of law, we
review for correctness. State v. Reynolds, 2004 MT 364, ¶ 8, 324 Mont. 495,
104 P.3d 1056. When reviewing a denial of a motion to dismiss based on entrapment, we
review the evidence and inferences in a light most favorable to the State. Reynolds, ¶ 8. A
court may determine that entrapment exists as a matter of law; however, if a genuine issue
9
of material fact exists, the issue is properly submitted to a jury. Reynolds, ¶ 9 (citing State
v. Kim, 239 Mont. 189, 194, 779 P.2d 512, 515 (1989)).
DISCUSSION
¶8 Whether the District Court erred in denying Lindquist’s motion to dismiss for
entrapment as a matter of law.
¶9 Entrapment is an affirmative defense afforded to a defendant by statute:
A person is not guilty of an offense if the person’s conduct is incited or
induced by a public servant or a public servant’s agent for the purpose of
obtaining evidence for the prosecution of the person. However, this section
is inapplicable if a public servant or a public servant’s agent merely affords
to the person the opportunity or facility for committing an offense in
furtherance of criminal purpose that the person has originated.
Section 45-2-213, MCA. A court may determine that entrapment exists as a matter of law
in the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Reynolds, ¶ 9. If there are conflicting
facts, the issue is properly submitted to a jury. Reynolds, ¶ 9 (citing Kim, 239 Mont. at
194, 779 P.2d at 515); see also Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63, 108 S. Ct. 883,
886 (1988) (“The question of entrapment is generally one for the jury, rather than for the
court.”). The defendant bears the burden of proof when asserting entrapment and must
show: (1) criminal design originating in the mind of the police officer or informer; (2)
absence of criminal intent or design originating in the mind of the accused; and (3) luring
or inducing the accused into committing a crime he had no intention of committing.
Reynolds, ¶¶ 9, 12 (citing State v. Canon, 212 Mont. 157, 167, 687 P.2d 705, 710 (1984)).
¶10 A distinction exists between inducing a person to commit an unlawful act and setting
a trap to catch him in the execution of a criminal design of his own conception. Reynolds,
¶ 12 (citing Canon, 212 Mont. at 167, 687 P.2d at 710). Inducement may be found when
10
an agent pleads, begs, or coerces a person into committing a crime. State v. Harney,
160 Mont. 55, 60, 499 P.2d 802, 805 (1972). Merely affording a person the opportunity to
commit an offense or by setting a trap is not inducement or entrapment. Reynolds, ¶ 12
(citing § 45-2-213, MCA). Because sex trafficking crimes are the type of offense
committed secretly, securing evidence and catching offenders is more difficult and often
requires law enforcement to use covert operations. Harney, 160 Mont. at 60–61, 499 P.2d
at 805 (quoting State v. Karathanos, 158 Mont. 461, 470, 493 P.2d 326, 330–31 (1972)).
Courts sanction the use of sting operations “if the officers do not by persuasion, deceitful
representations or inducement, lure a person who otherwise would not be likely to break
the law, into a criminal act.” Harney, 160 Mont. at 60–61, 499 P.2d at 805 (internal
citations omitted).
¶11 Lindquist argues that the Task Force entrapped him into attempted prostitution with
a minor by inducing him into replying to the Ad on Backpage.com with a seductive photo,
luring him to a motel room, and cajoling him into retrieving money from an ATM to pay
for sex. Lindquist asserts the criminal intent to engage in prostitution originated in the
mind of the Task Force when it placed the Ad on Backpage.com. He maintains he was
merely curious about the Ad and did not intend to engage in sex with a minor evidenced
by the fact that he went to the motel room without money.
¶12 The State counters that Lindquist fails to show the record contains no conflicting
facts regarding entrapment as a matter of law, and the District Court correctly determined
the issue should be submitted to a jury. The State maintains Lindquist cannot prove that
criminal intent originated with the Task Force, that he lacked criminal intent to commit the
11
offense, or that the Task Force induced him into committing a crime he had no intention of
committing, thus failing to establish entrapment as a matter of law. The State asserts the
idea to purchase sex from the Backpage.com Ad originated with Lindquist as evinced by
his series of actions.
¶13 The District Court determined conflicting facts existed regarding two of the three
elements of entrapment as a matter of law, and that the issue of entrapment should be
submitted to the jury. The District Court noted conflicting facts concerning: (a) whether
the criminal design originated with the Task Force or Lindquist and (b) whether Lindquist’s
actions could lead a jury to conclude he was merely curious with no intent to commit a
crime or that he was induced by law enforcement to commit a crime he had no intention to
commit. We agree.
¶14 We have repeatedly held that affording the defendant an opportunity to commit a
crime is not inducement or entrapment. Reynolds, ¶ 12; Harney, 160 Mont. at 60–61, 499
P.2d at 805; Karathanos, 158 Mont. at 470, 493 P.2d at 330–31. The Task Force’s Ad on
Backpage.com merely provided Lindquist the opportunity to commit a criminal act by
soliciting a prostitute. It is not as if the Task Force called Lindquist. Lindquist then made
several additional affirmative decisions from which a reasonable jury could conclude that
the idea to engage in the criminal behavior originated in his mind. After reading the
Backpage.com Ad, Lindquist dialed the contact information. After learning that the
prospective sex workers were ages twelve and fifteen, Lindquist arranged a meeting at a
Great Falls motel. In the motel room, he proceeded to negotiate for a half-hour of “regular
sex” with a fifteen-year-old girl. After indicating that he did not bring cash with him,
12
Lindquist retrieved $160 from an ATM, returned to the room, and paid the UC $160 cash
to have sex with a minor. Given these facts, Lindquist’s entrapment defense would have
been a tough sell to a jury, much less warranting dismissal as a matter of law. The District
Court did not err when it denied Lindquist’s motion to dismiss based on the affirmative
defense of entrapment.
CONCLUSION
¶15 The District Court correctly denied Lindquist’s motion to dismiss based on the
affirmative defense of entrapment as a matter of law. Because conflicting facts existed as
to whether Lindquist had the requisite intent to commit the criminal act, the District Court
correctly denied the motion and concluded the issue of entrapment must be submitted to a
jury. Reynolds, ¶ 9 (citing Kim, 239 Mont. at 194, 779 P.2d at 515). We affirm.
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
We Concur:
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JIM RICE
13