Adults with this type of addiction, engage in at least one of the relevant behaviors.
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.
According to court documents, Gallegos chatted with the agent on two occasions in 2006.
During those chats, Gallegos expressed that the girl was possibly too young but then went on to suggest how he would like to sexually touch her.
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?