The Court Case Of State Of Nebraska V. Gary E. Heitman

The court case of State of Nebraska v. Gary E. Heitman deals with the conviction of Heitman on charges of criminal conspiracy to commit first degree sexual assault on a minor. “Heitman contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict and that he was entrapped” (Heitman p.1) while the court concluded that “there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction” (Heitman p.1) and “further determined that the district court was not clearly wrong in finding that Heitman was predisposed to commit the crime and that thus, the district court was correct in rejecting his entrapment defense.” (Heitman p.1). I agree with the court’s rejection of the entrapment defense based upon things discussed in other entrapment cases and ideas brought up by

Heitman involves entrapment, we first should further look into the background of this trial and define entrapment. The incident began on June 20,1998, when Gary Heitman, age 53, went to the drive-thru of a Bronco’s restaurant in Nebraska and gave an envelope containing a $100 bill, three condoms, and a letter to a female employee ( referred to as “A.S”)working the window. The letter, although not explicitly stating any sexual intentions, alluded to some alternative motives as he confesses “I come thru just for a glimpse of you” (Heitman p.1) and even suggests she use the money to “buy a sexy dress for [her] lover”. His motives are more apparent once he provides his email in the letter and includes three condoms. A.S was only 14 years old during this confrontation. The scenario led to police involvement and this is when Det. Steven J. Henthorn presented A.S with two options: 1) he could pose as her and email Heitman to see what he would do when he was told she was only fourteen or 2) she could talk to him directly. A.S chose the email option and Henthorn began to send emails to Heitman posing as A.S but went by the nickname “Rodeo Queen”. Rodeo Queen did not mention her age, but later did in “her” second email. Rodeo Queen and Heitman exchanged several emails depicting sexual scenes between Heitman, A.S, and her 13 year old friend “Sue”. On August 2,1998- almost two months after the first encounter and after emphasizing importance of

Poehlman for several reasons. First, his failed attempts with other women put him in a vulnerable spot and could be one reason he continued this relationship with a woman who only wanted “a special man teacher for her children”(Poehlman p.2). “Sharon made it clear that agreeing to serve as a sexual mentor to her daughters was a condition to any further communications” (Poehlman p.5) and being in a vulnerable state Poehlman is more likely to take extreme measures to continue a relationship with Sharon. Secondly, it was not until Sharon brought up the conversation several times, persistently about wanting a children’s sex instructor that Poehlman even considered committing such acts. Furthermore, there is no evidence of predisposition, an important factor in determining entrapment.“Poehlman's erotic e-mails cannot provide proof of predisposition because nothing he says in them helps differentiate his state of mind prior to the government's intervention from that afterwards.” (Poehlman p.6) and “The only indication in the record of any preexisting interest in children is Poehlman's statement in the hotel room that he has ‘always looked at little girls’, hardly an indication that he was prone to engage in sexual relations with minors.” (Poehlman p.6). In the case of U.S. v. Poehlman, “it was the government who initiated contact or suggestions of impropriety” (Poehlman p.7). Whereas in State v. Heitman, “it was Heitman [that]