Yes, the trial judge wrongly (and inexplicably) failed to state on the record, or anywhere, why it denied defense counsel's objection to one of the peremptory challenges made by the prosecutor, notwithstanding that such judicial findings are expressly required by the statute. Yes, that means that we've got to reverse, thereby wasting the whole initial trial.
But, honestly, the guy's almost certainly getting convicted again on remand. The defendant fairly clearly solicited the cop pretending to be an online 14-year old, so I'd bet big money on another conviction for meeting a minor for lewd purposes and showing pornography to a minor. After all, the guy sent the would-be 14 year old a picture of himself masturbating, and fairly clearly (and expressly) was looking to "link up" with the thought-she-was-a-minor. You're getting convicted in that setting 99 times out of 100. Maybe even 100 out of 100.
Two things, though.
First, the guy only gets sentenced to three years of probation (albeit has to register as a sex offender)? Geeze. For that, just plead guilty. Get the thing over with.
Second, the opinion mentions that, at one point, the defendant sent a text to the would-be-minor that asked if she knew "how to suck D." The opinion immediately follows this revelation by stating that, at trial, the officer "recognized from his training that D was 'short for dick.'”
Really?! That's part of your "training?" They seriously have to tell you at the police academy that the "D" in "suck D" stands for dick?
Even if you didn't know from common experience what that phrase meant, what else could the D even possibly stand for? Diaper? Dreadnought? Dictionary?
