A person must intend to enter into prostitution specifically with a child in order to be charged with the offense, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday in rejecting prosecutors’ arguments for a more permissive legal standard.

The case centered around an interpretation of the felony crime of soliciting for child prostitution, which requires that there be “the purpose of prostitution of a child or by a child.” However, the question for the justices was whether the person committing the offense necessarily had seek out a child.

“The conduct that is being prohibited here is a certain kind of solicitation: soliciting for prostitution,” Johanna Coats with the Denver District Attorney’s Office told the justices at oral argument in November. “And the additional circumstance has to be present: that the victim is a child.” 

In writing for the Court, Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. rejected that lower threshold, concluding that “simply proving that the defendant’s purpose was prostitution in general, not child prostitution specifically, cannot suffice – even if there is eventually prostitution of or by a child.”

Phillip L. Ross responded to an Internet advertisement for prostitutes involving women at least 19 years of age. The girls with whom he texted, however, were both under 18, unbeknown to Ross. Prosecutors subsequently charged him with soliciting for child prostitution. 

The trial court judge found the Denver District Attorney’s Office failed to show Ross intended to enter into prostitution with a child for one of the girls, and dismissed those charges. The Supreme Court in its opinion upheld that decision.

However, the lower court judge allowed the charges involving the other girl to proceed to trial. Those proceedings ended in a mistrial, and Ross pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of soliciting another for prostitution.

Under the law, it is not a defense to not know the age of the child or to believe that they are of age. However, the Court of Appeals decided upon reviewing Ross’s case that prosecutors still had to prove a defendant was soliciting for the purpose of child prostitution.

The Supreme Court agreed with that understanding of the law.

“We saw a tension in the two underlying statutes and sought the court’s guidance to resolve them. We are grateful to the justices for providing clarity on the elements that we must prove in order to convict a person of solicitation for child prostitution,” said Carolyn Tyler, a spokesperson for the district attorney’s office. Ross’s lawyer declined to comment on the ruling.

Justice Monica M. Márquez did not participate in the case. Her father, retired Judge Jose D.L. Márquez, served on the panel that reviewed Ross’s appeal.

The case is People v. Ross.