## Facts

- A detective with the RANGE Task Force participated in an undercover prostitution sting at a Marriott hotel in Dayton, Ohio.
- The detective placed an advertisement on the Backpage website in the “sex for money” section.
- Kenneth Short texted the detective and began the exchange by writing “Hi sexy” and asking, “Free today?”
- When the detective asked what he wanted, Short replied: “Bj? Hot hand job? Hot sex?”
- The detective responded with rates (“Hr 125, half 80”), and Short replied, “Ok ... where.”
- The detective directed Short to the Marriott, and the two exchanged photos to identify each other.
- Short repeatedly asked the detective to send a photo of her breasts so he could confirm she was “not a cop.”
- Short arrived at the hotel room but fled when he saw other detectives inside; he was arrested after getting into his car.
- Short was charged in Dayton Municipal Court with soliciting in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.24(A)(1).
- He waived a jury and proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated evidence: an oral stipulation of what the detective’s testimony would have been, plus two exhibits (the police report and a printout of the text messages).
- The trial court found Short guilty and imposed a sentence including 10 days in jail (suspended), community control with conditions (including HIV testing and “Johns’ School”), and forfeiture of $130.

## Issues

1. Whether the stipulated evidence was sufficient to prove that Short “solicit[ed] another to engage with such other person in sexual activity for hire” under Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.24(A)(1), where the detective quoted the rates after Short identified the sexual acts he wanted.

## Decision

- The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Short solicited sexual activity for hire.
- The court rejected Short’s claim that he merely accepted an offer by the undercover officer; Short’s initiation of contact, specific requests for sex acts, and agreement to meet after receiving the rates supported the conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.24(A)(1) prohibits soliciting another to engage in sexual activity for hire.
- On sufficiency review, an appellate court asks whether any rational factfinder, construing the evidence in the state’s favor, could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A solicitation may be shown by a defendant’s communications and conduct seeking sexual activity in a paid context; the defendant need not be the person who first states the price for the encounter.
- In a bench trial on stipulated facts and exhibits, the appellate court evaluates sufficiency based on the record as stipulated and admitted.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals concluded that Short’s text messages—initiating contact, asking if the detective was available, requesting specific sexual acts, responding “Ok ... where” after receiving rates, and traveling to the hotel—provided enough evidence for a rational factfinder to determine that he solicited sexual activity for hire under R.C. 2907.24(A)(1), so the judgment was affirmed.


State v. Short, 2017 WL 3446990 (2017)