Defendant was convicted for attempted enticement of a child and argued on appeal 1) that the statute was void for vagueness and 2) that it was factually impossible for defendant to have enticed a “child” since defendant had enticed an undercover police officier. The appeals Court affirmed defendant’s conviction stating that: 1) factual impossibility of defendant completing the crime is irrelevant when defendant was merely charged with “attempted” enticement of a child; the fact that defendant did not entice a real child is no defense. 2) the existence of factual impossibility does not, on its face, make a statute void for vagueness. And 3) this statute specifically states that the impossibility of complettion of the crime is not a defense.
State v. Faruqi, No. 91195 (Mo. banc August 2, 2011)