"If a person tells you they're a minor you'd better log off," Durham said.

Taliaferro argued that on the Internet people pose as someone they are not all the time and it is difficult to tell who you are actually chatting with. Because of this, Internet chat sometimes turns into fantasy and is not grounded in reality.

Durham pointed out that Gallegos went beyond sexual talk and into soliciting someone who claimed they were a minor. That, she said, is illegal. She added if a man walked up to a 13-year-old on the street and solicited sex, what would be the difference?

"It is the solicitation, the inducement, the allure. That's what is prohibited," said assistant Utah attorney general Jeffrey Gray.

Justice Michael Wilkins asked Gray if it was illegal for someone to have "cyber-sex" with someone claiming to be a minor. "Does the state consider cyber-sex to be sexual activity?" Wilkins asked.

Gray said the state did not, but if the person solicited sex and believed it was a minor, that is what the law requires.

Wilkins wondered how the state can establish what a person believes short of having a full confession. He said he was "troubled" by the law and concerned about its constitutionality.

In this case, Wilkins said it appeared all the state needed to do to convict someone was to go online, set up a meeting for sex and that is enough.

Typically, state agents will try to get the suspect to show up at a prearranged location and time in order to prove legal intent.

Gallegos is also taking issue with a judge's denial of an expert witness, a doctor who would testify that Gallegos was not attracted to minor girls and was therefore not a pedophile. The trial court ruled the testimony was not relevant.

Justices said if the state sets out to prove someone's intent then perhaps a defendant should be allowed to challenge that with expert testimony.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the coming months.

---

E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com