You can't attempt to solicit

James Pratt won in State v. Rexroat, No. 99,432 (Kan. App. Nov. 21, 2008)(unpublished), affirming Judge Frederick's dismissal of a Finney County attempted indecent solicitation prosecution. Lucille Douglass was the defense attorney at the district court level. On appeal, the state conceded that, if indecent solicitation is an inchoate crime, attempted indecent solicitation would impermissibly stack inchoate offenses. The COA reviewed the statutory scheme:

The State fails to show why K.S.A. 21-3110's definition of solicitation "clearly requires a different meaning" when applied to indecent solicitation of a child. We see no basis upon which to conclude that the legislature, through its clearly expressed statutory language, intended solicitation of a child to be different from solicitation in any other context. Solicitation is specifically identified as an anticipatory crime in our Kansas Criminal Code.

The COA notes that the legislature has created a new offense of electronic solicitation, which may cover these circumstances, but it was not in effect at the time of the alleged offense. The newly-created offense may mean that this case involves an issue of last impression.

[Update: the state did not file a PR and the mandate issued January 5, 2009.]