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.
Ultimately, the agent and Gallegos arranged a meeting outside a school in Sandy.
While Gallegos did drive by the meeting spot, officers said he sped off.
Taliaferro said in her client's case, he was convicted based solely on an Internet chat he claims was purely sexual fantasy.
James Gallegos, of Clearfield, was charged and convicted by a jury of enticing a 13-year-old girl over the Internet. In actuality, the 13-year-old was an adult agent with the Utah Attorney General's Internet Crimes Against Children task force.
Taliaferro argued that on the Internet people pose as someone they are not all of the time and that 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.
Gallegos claims he had never believed the person he was chatting with was a minor.Durham pointed out that Gallegos went beyond sexual talk and into soliciting someone who claimed they were a minor. 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.The supreme court is expected to issue a ruling in the coming months.CHAT NOTES FOR NEWBIES Striking Up The Right Conversation The next step is how to talk to people.