California v. Shapiro
Annotate this Case
Defendant was convicted of violating Penal Code section 288.3, subdivision (a), which prohibits contacting a minor for the purpose of committing various crimes, including, as alleged here, sexual penetration with a person under the age of 18 years. The court ordered defendant placed on formal probation for five years subject to various conditions, including that defendant serve 240 days in the Orange County jail. Defendant’s interactions with the victim were entirely over the Internet, primarily through chat rooms. At the time he met "Jane Doe," she was 14 years old and he was 59 years old, but he represented himself to be only two or three years older than her. The two developed a close relationship, and when Jane Doe was 16 years old, they began having cybersex, which involved watching pornographic videos together, describing various sexual acts they would do to one another, and masturbating together. Defendant was in California during these online interactions, and Jane Doe was in Indiana. Defendant raised numerous contentions on appeal: Jane Doe was not a minor because the age of consent in Indiana was 16 years old, and in any event, he could not have caused the sexual penetration from thousands of miles away; his conviction under section 288.3 violated his constitutional rights to equal protection, privacy, and free speech; and his conviction violated the dormant commerce clause. The Court of Appeal affirmed: "[d]efendant’s seduction of Jane Doe under false pretenses, together with his repeated suggestions that she masturbate, satisfied the statutory elements of intending to participate in causing sexual penetration. Even if Jane Doe was an adult for purposes of applying Indiana law, she was a minor for purposes of applying California law. And we reject the various constitutional challenges defendant raises to the validity of section 288.3 and his conviction in particular."
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.