Cause I had a bit of time to kill and access to Westlaw:
Commonwealth v. Garvin
“At trial, the Commonwealth established that the twenty-six year old defendant lured the victim, an eleven year old girl that he met on the Internet, out of her home, engaged in two open-mouthed kisses with her (inserting his tongue) and invited her back to his apartment. The Commonwealth contended that the defendant proffered the invitation with the intent to engage in sexual conduct that would constitute, if completed, statutory rape or indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen years of age.”
He had done it before: “Here, the testimony of Emily and Helen regarding their meeting, interactions, and sexual conduct with the defendant was properly admitted to prove the defendant’s intent when he invited the victim back to his apartment, an essential element of the offense.”
State v. Stanley Stadler
“ On August 29, 2004, 14-year-old K.T. ran away from her Clark County, Washington foster home and was reported missing. Following a tip from a private organization that had tracked K.T.'s recent Internet activity, officers eventually located K.T. at Sadler’s residence”
“The subsequent searches of Sadler’s residence and computer equipment yielded a significant amount of evidence, including numerous images of K.T. engaging in sexually explicit activities.”
Thao v. State
“L.X. testified that she met Thao in an Internet chat room, gave him her phone number, and told him that she was 13 years old, and that Thao told her that his name was Tommy and that he was 16 years old.”
“Officer Ratajczyk went to his squad car, accessed a photograph of Thao from the Minnesota Driver Vehicle Services website, recognized the man in the car as Thao, and learned that Thao’s actual birth date is March 10, 1972, which made him 32 years old on that evening.”
Evans v. Commonwealth
“In 2004, victim, born May 29, 1990, began communicating with appellant over the internet. During their first communication, victim told appellant her true age, and appellant told victim he was twenty-six years old. [he was actually 37] On February 14, 2005, victim invited appellant to visit her at her father’s home in Stafford County. During that conversation, they discussed having sexual intercourse when appellant arrived. … Around 1:00 a.m. on February 15, 2005, appellant arrived at victim’s father’s home, without her parents’ knowledge, and they engaged in sexual intercourse.”
In Re Commitment of Philip Goldhammer
Those were the results I got in a half hour of looking. And they’re only cases that went to trial and have already been decided by the appellate court, so it doesn’t include pleas or cases pending on first appeal.
(I was 21, she was 17. She jumped me though, so there’s that. Or does that not matter either in the eye of the law ?)