Background
Police created a fictitious Grindr profile for “Joy_Boy” that listed the user as 18 and displayed an obscured photograph of a 20-year-old officer. Nowicki initiated a conversation seeking a sexual encounter. During the exchange, the police decoy said he could not drive, described himself as younger and inexperienced, and sent the standalone message “15.” Nowicki continued discussing sexual acts, traveled to the designated hotel, and was arrested.
A jury convicted Nowicki of child sexually abusive activity under MCL 750.145c(2). He maintained that he did not see the “15” message and had relied on the profile’s stated age. On appeal, he challenged the evidence, the statute’s constitutionality, and trial counsel’s failure to raise entrapment before trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence supported the conviction. Viewed favorably to the prosecution, the conversation permitted a rational jury to find that Nowicki knew or reasonably should have known the decoy purported to be a child. The jury also could find that relying solely on the unverified profile age, despite indications that the decoy might be underage, was not a reasonable precaution. The court further rejected Nowicki’s vagueness and overbreadth challenges to MCL 750.145c(2).
The court nevertheless reversed because trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise entrapment. Applying the Michigan Supreme Court’s clarified framework in People v. Jade, the panel found a reasonable probability that an entrapment defense would have succeeded under either unlawful inducement or reprehensible police conduct: police presented the decoy as an adult, waited for an untargeted user to initiate lawful activity, and then introduced the underage element through ambiguous language. The court remanded for the trial court to decide entrapment after allowing the prosecution to present opposing evidence; if entrapment is rejected, the case may proceed to a new trial.
Key Takeaways
- The evidence was sufficient because the messages, considered together, supported findings that Nowicki knew or should have known the decoy purported to be under 18 and that he failed to take reasonable age-verification precautions.
- Counsel performed deficiently by omitting an entrapment defense that could have produced pretrial dismissal and was not inconsistent with presenting an innocence defense to the jury.
- The appellate court did not hold that Nowicki was entrapped as a matter of law; the trial court must decide that issue on remand under the clarified entrapment framework.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that police may detect existing criminal intent but may not manufacture a crime by transforming a suspect’s apparent willingness to engage in lawful adult activity into a more serious offense. Ambiguous age disclosures, untargeted online operations, police-controlled escalation, and the absence of safeguards can materially strengthen an entrapment claim.
It also underscores defense counsel’s obligation to evaluate entrapment separately from trial defenses because entrapment is decided by the court and, if established, requires dismissal rather than merely supporting an acquittal.