Cited by

2a, “is to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation and from exposure to harmful sexual material.”

told N.L., a friend from church whom she would later 1 “‘Grooming’ is a process sexual predators use to shape a child’s perspective and lower the child’s inhibitions with respect to later criminal sexual acts.” State v. Muccio

See, –55 13 (Minn. 1992) (applying Miller to sale of pornographic magazines depicting adults); (applying Miller to film graphically portraying explicit sexual contact); –26 (Minn. 2017) (applying Miller to communication with a child describing sexual conduct); Knudtson, d at 169 (applying Miller to nude barroom dancing).

“‘Grooming’ is a process that sexual predators use to shape a child’s perspective and lower the child’s inhibitions w ith respect to later crim inal sexual acts.” State v. Muccio

8 the video to another adult, “the intent to arouse requirement applies to any person, not just the adult and child engaging in the communication.” 5 Because the facts admitted at the plea hearing support the inference that Espinoza sent the video with the intent to arouse a person’s sexual desires, the district court did not err by concluding that Espinoza’s plea was ac curate and that plea withdrawal was not necessary to correct a manif

State v. Muccio , (explaining that overbreadth challenges fail if a statute only proscribes unprotected speech); (explaining that content-based restrictions on unprotected speech are evaluated differently than similar restrictions on protected speech).

6 of A.J.B., –48, 856, 863 (Minn. 2019) (holding that a stalking-by-mail statute was overbroad but that a mail-harassment statute was not); Hensel, d at 170, 181 (holding that the disturbance-of-assembly statute was facially unconstitutional); State v. Muccio , –29 (Minn. 2017) (holding that a statute criminalizing electronic communication directed at a child that describes sexual conduct was not facially unconstitutional); State v. Washington-Davis , 540–41 (Minn. 2016) ( holding that a statut

inalizes stalking conduct, and the supreme court has upheld statute s that criminalize conduct when it is “directly linked to and designed to facilitate the commission of a crime.” ( upholding promotion-of-prostitution statute because it regulates spe ech “aimed at furthering the commission of a crime” ); (upholding solicitation-of-children statute because it regulates communication that “is both linked to and designed to facilitate the commission of the later crime”).

State v. Muccio , , 923 (Minn. 2017) (quoting United States v. Williams , 553 U.S. 285 , 298, 128 S.Ct.

See State v. Muccio , (noting that sexual predators often expose a child to sexual content in order to desensitize the child and lower the child’s inhibitions with resp ect to later criminal sexual a cts).

State v. Muccio , , 928 (Minn. 2017).

State v. Muccio , , 920 (Minn. 2017).

State v. Muccio , , 922 (Minn. 2017).

Hensel , d at 171 ; State v. Muccio , , 923 (Minn. 2017), cert.

Moreover, the-statute’s specific-intent requirement—that false claims be knowingly made—ensures that “the statute does not target broad categories of speech.”

(describing 6 “grooming” as “a process sexual predators use to shape a child’s perspective and lower the child’s inhibitions with respect to later criminal sexual acts.

State v. Muccio , -29 (Minn. 2017).