Mr. David R. Bullock filed an appeal from his convictions for attempted statutory rape, and attempted sexual exploitation of a minor. David R. Bullock put himself in numerous conversations via email and chat rooms with a Newton County Deputy Sheriff who was conducting a sting operation against pedophiles. The Deputy took on a persona of a thirteen year old female by the name of “Ashley Anne”. Many of the conversations that took place between Mr. Bullock and “Ashley” were of a sexual nature. During conversations between Mr. Bullock and “Ashley”, he discussed how he would like to engage in certain acts (sexual) with her and her friends (girls of younger age) and how he would like to video those acts. He informed “Ashley” that the conversations about meeting with her and her friends should not be discussed because it was not legal for them to meet. Eventually a meeting was scheduled for a time and a place to meet and specific instructions were given to “Ashley” on how the meeting should take place. “Ashley” was told that upon her arrival to the specified location, she should meet Mr. Bullock in a specific area of that location.
On October 18, 2002, Mr. Bullock and the decoy “Ashley” were present at the specified location, along with computer and video equipment in his vehicle, which ultimately leads to the arrest of Mr. Bullock. At the time of the arrest, Mr. Bullock did not deny having conversations with “Ashley” but explained that if she would arrive, he just wanted her to be counseled by the authorities on the dangers of meeting strangers on the internet. Mr. Bullock argues that his case is a case of entrapment and that he took no “substantial steps” towards committing the crimes he has been charged with. Issue:
The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged and Appellant claims an entrapment defense for the reason that he was not predisposed to engage in the charged offenses, we shall set forth in greater detail a series of sordid internet and telephone communications between Appellant and the
purported 3 victim than we usually would.
First, Appellant does not admit that he committed the crimes for which he was convicted and, second, there is no evidence that Appellant was not predisposed, ready and willing to commit these crimes. Appellant did not meet his burden of injecting into the case a proper case for entrapment.
Appellant tendered four jury instructions alleging the affirmative defense of entrapment. Appellant cites to the evidence that Ashley induced Appellant to take the “substantial step” of committing the crimes of statutory rape and sexual exploitation of a minor when he was not otherwise so inclined. Appellant contends that he was only willing to express his fantasies, which was not a crime he was charged or convicted of, and he was not willing to act upon his fantasies without the inducement by Ashley. He notes that Ashley initiated the majority of contacts with Appellant; specifically, he claims Ashley initiated seventeen of the nineteen instant messages and four of the eight e-mails between her and Appellant. Appellant indicated the portions of the conversations where Ashley first proposed that Appellant come to Diamond and persisted in trying to set a firm date; he claims he was reluctant to act on his desires. Appellant’s claim that he would not have committed the charged offenses but for the enticement by Ashley is not supported by the evidence.