Statutory Rape Defense in North Carolina

First-degree sexual exploitation of a minor is North Carolina's most serious child sexual abuse material (CSAM) charge. It's the offense the State brings when it believes someone used, coerced, or permitted a child to be filmed or photographed in sexual activity, or produced or profited from that material. It's a Class C felony under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-190.16. In North Carolina, that means a presumptive prison sentence measured in years, not months, plus lifelong consequences that outlast any sentence. This article walks through what the charge actually covers, why it matters that yours is "first degree," exactly what a prosecutor has to prove, how much prison time is realistically on the table, which defenses work and which don't, and what registration as a sex offender looks like. It ends with the concrete steps that matter most right now. What is first-degree sexual exploitation of a minor in North Carolina? It's the top-tier charge for producing child sexual abuse material, the conduct the law treats as creating the material or using a child to create it, as opposed to simply having it or passing it along. Under G.S. 14-190.16, a person commits this offense when, knowing the content and character of the material, they use, employ, induce, coerce, encourage, or facilitate a minor to take part in a live or recorded sexual performance, or permit a minor under their custody or control to do so, transport a minor for that purpose, or record or produce that material for sale or financial gain. A few things surprise people about this charge. First, it is not a statutory rape charge, and it's not the same thing as a hands-on sex offense. It’s about sexual material involving a child. Second, "material" is broad: photos, videos, and live-streamed performances all count. North Carolina's 2024 amendments (S.L. 2024-37) extended the statute to reach AI-generated or digitally modified images of an identifiable real child, and even a "child sex doll" modeled on an identifiable child. "Sexual activity" isn't left to the imagination either. It's specifically defined in G.S. 14-190.13. Why is my charge "first degree" and not second or third? Because North Carolina grades these offenses in three degrees by how close you allegedly were to creating the material. First degree is the most serious of the three. The degree you're charged with tells you where you sit on that ladder and how much prison time you're exposed to. • First degree, G.S. 14-190.16 (Class C, or Class D for the newer AI-image and child-sex-doll provisions): using, coercing, or permitting a minor to be recorded in sexual activity, or producing/profiting from that material. This is production-level conduct. • Second degree, G.S. 14-190.17 (Class E): recording, photographing, filming, or copying such material, or distributing, transporting, selling, receiving, or exchanging it. • Third degree, G.S. 14-190.17A (Class H): knowingly possessing it. The gap between the degrees is large. Third-degree possession is a Class H felony; second-degree is Class E; first-degree is a Class C felony, several classes more serious, with dramatically longer presumptive sentences. If you're charged in the first degree, the State is alleging you were involved in making the material or using a child to make it, not just that it was found on your device. What does the prosecutor have to prove to convict me? The State has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you acted "knowing the content and character of the material." It also has to prove that your conduct fits one of the specific first-degree acts in the statute: using or coercing a minor into a sexual performance, permitting a minor in your control to do so, or producing the material. The knowledge requirement is the backbone of the charge, and it's where a lot of real defense work happens. For a jury, this gets translated into the pattern jury instruction N.C.P.I.—Crim. 238.21 (the standard script a judge reads to jurors for first-degree sexual exploitation). Two points matter for how these cases are built: • The image is the unit of prosecution. North Carolina treats each individual image or file as its own offense, so a single device can generate many separate counts. In State v. Howell, 169 N.C. App. 58 (2005), each of the images on the defendant's hard drive supported a separate charge. That's why an arrest can turn into dozens of counts fast. • For AI or modified material, the child must be real and identifiable. The modification provisions reach depictions of an identifiable minor, an actual, real child. Purely fictional, computer-generated imagery that doesn't depict a real person raises a constitutional problem the State can't simply wave away (more on that below). Do they have to prove I physically touched or harmed a child? No. Proof of physical contact by you, visible injury, or a completed sex act with you is not part of what the statute requires. The offense depends on the sexual material and your knowing role in creating or producing it. This trips people up, because they assume a "sex crime" requires proof that someone was physically hurt. That cuts both ways. It means the State doesn't have to produce a physically injured witness to convict. But it also means the case rises or falls on the material and the digital evidence, which is exactly the terrain where the knowledge and identification questions live. The absence of any injury requirement is why forensic analysis of devices, files, and metadata usually matters far more in these cases than in a typical assault case. How much prison time am I actually facing? For a first-degree charge as a Class C felony, the presumptive sentence starts at a minimum of roughly 58 to 73 months (about five to six years) for someone with little or no prior record. It climbs steeply from there with prior convictions. That's the floor for a single count, before the factors that make these cases so dangerous. North Carolina sentences felonies under the Structured Sentencing Act ( G.S. 15A-1340.17), which sets the sentence from two things: the offense class and your prior record level (a point score based on past convictions). Three features drive the real risk up: 1. The reportable-offense add-on. Because this is a registrable sex offense, the maximum term isn't just the minimum plus the usual 20%. The statute adds 60 more months on top. In its own words, the maximum equals "the sum of the minimum term of imprisonment and twenty percent (20%) of the minimum term of imprisonment … plus 60 additional months." 2. Stacked counts. With each image chargeable separately (Howell), multiple counts are common. A judge has discretion under G.S. 15A-1354 to run sentences consecutively (one after another) rather than at the same time. 3. The AI/doll provisions are graded slightly lower but still severe. The newer provisions for modified images of an identifiable minor and for child sex dolls are Class D felonies, one step below Class C, but still a high-level felony carrying years of active prison time. These offenses are also not eligible for the conditional-discharge and deferral programs that can keep lower-level felonies off a record. For a Class C or Class D sex offense, that off-ramp isn't available. Can I argue I didn't know their age, or that the image was just AI? Not the way most people hope. Mistake of age is barred by the statute outright: the law says plainly that "mistake of age is not a defense to a prosecution under this section." And the person deciding your case is allowed to infer that a subject is a minor from how the material itself looks. So "I thought they were 18" is not a defense here. The "it was only AI, so there's no real victim" argument is more nuanced and easy to get wrong. There is a real constitutional line: in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court held that entirely virtual imagery (material that "records no crime and creates no victims by its production") is protected and can't be criminalized. But North Carolina's statute is written specifically to reach modified or AI-generated depictions of an identifiable, real minor. So whether this helps you depends entirely on whether the material depicts an actual identifiable child or a purely fictional, non-identifiable creation. That's a factual and technical fight, not a slogan. What defenses could actually work in my case? The realistic defenses cluster around what the State genuinely has to prove: knowledge, control, identity, and (for modified images) whether a real child is depicted. "Charged" is not "convicted," and in first-degree cases the defense often has more to work with than clients expect. What if I didn't knowingly possess or control the material? The State must prove you knew the character and content of the material and that the specific conduct was yours. Shared devices, automatic caching by apps and browsers, and unopened downloads all directly affect whether you knowingly did anything. Digital forensics (who actually accessed a file, when, and how it got there) is frequently the center of the case. What if the image was AI-generated or not of a real child? For any count based on a modified, "deepfaked," or AI-generated image, the Ashcroft line matters. If the depiction isn't of a real, identifiable child, it may fall outside what the statute can constitutionally punish. This requires scrutinizing the State's proof that an actual minor is depicted. What if the State can't prove it was me? The prosecution has to tie you to the production conduct, not just to a device or an account. Chain of custody, account attribution, and whether the alleged conduct actually meets the first-degree definition (production/use) rather than a lesser degree are all live issues that can reduce or defeat counts. Will I have to register as a sex offender, and for how long? Yes, a conviction for first-degree sexual exploitation is a "reportable conviction," so registration on North Carolina's sex offender registry is mandatory. The baseline term is at least 30 years. There is a possibility of petitioning the court to end registration after 10 years of a clean record under G.S. 14-208.12A. Registration becomes lifetime for anyone who is a recidivist, is convicted of an "aggravated offense," or is classified as a sexually violent predator ( G.S. 14-208.23). Whether a case falls into the 30-year or lifetime category is often the single most important collateral question, so it deserves close attention early. A few practical realities: • The registry is administered by the county sheriff: in the Raleigh area, the Wake County Sheriff, which maintains 874 registered offenders; Durham County has 506. • Courts treat registration as a civil, regulatory scheme rather than punishment (Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003)). That's why it can attach even when it feels like a second sentence. • Failing to keep your registration current is itself a separate felony under G.S. 14-208.11, an independent charge on top of the original case. What should I avoid doing right now? The most common post-arrest mistakes are the ones that hand the State evidence it didn't have. Before anything else, avoid these: • Don't talk to investigators. Detectives are trained to build the case. Statements, even ones meant to explain or minimize, routinely become the strongest evidence against you. You have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present. Use it. • Don't touch, delete, or "clean up" any devices. Deleted files are routinely recovered by forensic examiners, and destroying or altering evidence can create new criminal exposure on top of the existing charge. Leave everything exactly as it is. • Don't consent to searches of your phone, computer, or accounts. Consent gives up rights that a lawyer may otherwise be able to use, including challenging how the evidence was obtained. Politely decline and ask to speak with an attorney. What should I do right now? Three steps matter more than anything else: 1. Stop talking and invoke your rights. Say clearly that you want a lawyer and that you're not answering questions, then stop. 2. Preserve everything and change nothing. Don't delete, move, or access files or devices connected to the allegation. 3. Get a defense attorney experienced in North Carolina child-exploitation cases, immediately. Because these cases depend on digital forensics and carry years of potential prison time and lifelong consequences, the early strategic decisions are the ones that shape the outcome. That last point is where the right lawyer can change the trajectory of a case. Strategic Defense Against Serious Sex Offense Allegations Facing a charge of First-Degree Sexual Exploitation of a Minor requires an immediate, sophisticated legal response, particularly given the state’s reliance on complex digital forensics and evolving statutes. Attorney Patrick Roberts brings over two decades of focused criminal defense experience to these high-stakes matters. A former Assistant District Attorney with a career built on handling more than 250 felony sex crime cases, Mr. Roberts possesses the specific technical expertise necessary to challenge government evidence regarding identity, knowledge, and digital control. His practice is defined by rigorous trial advocacy—including experience with cases involving the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force—and he regularly collaborates with independent digital forensic experts to audit the State’s findings. With a practice dedicated exclusively to criminal defense, Mr. Roberts provides the strategic counsel required to navigate the severe implications of Class C felony allegations and protect the rights of those facing investigation or prosecution in North Carolina state and federal courts. • AV Preeminent Rating (2018–2026): Consistently awarded the highest peer-review rating by Martindale-Hubbell for professional excellence in legal knowledge, analytical capabilities, and ethical standards. • Top 1 Percent Recognition: Named to the Nation’s Top 1 Percent by the National Association of Distinguished Counsel for six separate years, including 2025 and 2026. • Duke University School of Law: Earned a Juris Doctor degree (J.D.) from a top-tier legal institution, providing a foundation for high-level complex litigation strategies. • Former Prosecutor Perspective: Leveraging four years of experience as an Assistant District Attorney—including service as a juvenile sex crimes prosecutor—to anticipate and counter the State’s case strategy in exploitation allegations. • Digital Forensics Training: Completed the "Defending Digital Sex Crimes Bootcamp" (2026) and maintains ongoing training in auditing government digital forensic evidence, directly relevant to challenging allegations involving digital material. Client Review Our family turned to Attorney Patrick Roberts during an incredibly difficult chapter in our lives. Although our daughter lived in Raleigh, we are based in Central New Jersey, which meant countless hours on the road and a constant struggle to stay on top of the legal process from several states away. From the moment we met Mr. Roberts, he brought a sense of steadiness and reassurance that made an overwhelming situation feel manageable. He took the time to explain his credentials, his experience, and the steps he would take to defend our daughter, who had been accused of multiple violations stemming from a domestic incident. His confidence was never arrogant—just the calm, professional assurance of someone who knows the law, knows the system, and knows how to protect the people who depend on him. — Review by a verified client via Avvo Peer Endorsement I endorse Andy. He is a highly skilled attorney that is well respected in the legal community. — Peer endorsement by a fellow North Carolina trial attorney via Avvo Disclaimer: The client reviews and peer endorsements displayed are authentic testimonials and comments provided by clients and fellow attorneys. Every case is unique and must be evaluated individually; past client experiences and case results do not guarantee, promise, or predict similar outcomes in any future matter. Case Results A prospective client should always know the kind of work and outcomes an attorney has achieved in similar situations. Here is a look at real case results handled by Attorney Patrick Roberts: • Child Sexual Abuse Material Investigation: Following an investigation into the downloading of prohibited materials, law enforcement executed a search warrant at the client’s residence. Mr. Roberts successfully* presented mitigating evidence to the District Attorney's office, resulting in a negotiated probationary sentence rather than incarceration. ○ Outcome: Probation with a transfer of supervision permitted. • Second-Degree Child Exploitation Allegations: In a case involving charges of internet communications with a minor, Attorney Patrick Roberts utilized psychological evaluations to negotiate with the prosecution. This advocacy resulted in a plea to non-sex offense misdemeanors, preventing felony convictions, incarceration, and sex offender registration. ○ Outcome: Plea to two misdemeanors; no prison time, felony conviction, or sex offender registration. • Online Child Exploitation Charges: The client faced charges related to online communications and photo exchanges with a minor. By investigating the client's psychological history and presenting expert evaluations to prosecutors, defense counsel negotiated a plea agreement to non-sex offense misdemeanors, avoiding prison and registration requirements. ○ Outcome: Plea to two misdemeanors; no prison time, felony conviction, or sex offender registration. • Investigation of Child Pornography and Related Misdemeanors: An individual under investigation for child pornography, and separately charged with misdemeanor larceny and resisting a public officer, secured a favorable resolution after Mr. Roberts conducted an independent defense investigation and it revealed contradictory evidence. As a result, federal authorities declined to pursue charges, and the State dismissed the remaining misdemeanor counts. ○ Outcome: No charges filed; all pending charges dismissed. Disclaimer: Case outcomes depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future legal matter. Experienced Criminal Defense Representation for First-Degree Sexual Exploitation Charges A charge of First-Degree Sexual Exploitation of a Minor involves complex legal, evidentiary, and forensic challenges that require an immediate, strategic defense. When facing allegations of this severity, the actions taken in the earliest stages of an investigation are critical to safeguarding your future. It is essential to secure experienced counsel who understands the nuances of state and federal digital evidence statutes and who can proactively challenge the State’s case. Patrick Roberts Law provides comprehensive defense representation for clients facing high-stakes litigation across all North Carolina counties. With a concentrated practice in Wake County—including Raleigh, Cary, Apex, Holly Springs, Garner, and Fuquay-Varina—we are prepared to advocate for your rights with discretion and precision. If you are under investigation or facing charges, do not discuss your case with law enforcement; contact us immediately at www.patrickroberts.law to discuss your legal options. Access our Sex Offense Search Tool to look up North Carolina laws, felony levels, sentencing guidelines, and mandatory registration rules. Find out how NC defense lawyer Patrick Roberts can assist with your case. To ensure the timely progression of all legal matters, we cap the number of active cases our team manages at any one time. Disclaimer: This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. North Carolina expunction law is almost entirely statutory and subject to legislative change, and how these rules apply depends on the specific facts of your case. For guidance on your situation, consult a licensed North Carolina attorney.

Patrick Roberts Law is a criminal defense firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina, with additional offices in Durham, Chapel Hill, and Cary. The firm and its founder, Patrick Roberts, defend people across North Carolina who are under investigation or facing charges for solicitation of a minor by computer. That includes internet-sting cases and their federal counterparts. If you are dealing with this kind of accusation, you are on the right page. These are among the most aggressively investigated offenses in the state and the country. In 2025, Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task forces, a network that serves North Carolina, conducted nearly 347,000 investigations that led to more than 17,000 arrests. In the same year, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children received about 1.4 million reports of online enticement. In practice, that enforcement volume means many of these cases are built by law enforcement from the first message forward. That changes how they have to be defended. We handle that reality directly. How We Defend Solicitation of a Minor by Computer Charges What is the state charge under G.S. 14-202.3? We represent clients charged under North Carolina's solicitation statute, G.S. 14-202.3. That statute makes it a crime for a person 16 or older to knowingly use a computer or other electronic device, with intent to commit an unlawful sex act, to entice, advise, coerce, order, or command a child under 16 who is at least five years younger in order to arrange a meeting. A first offense is a Class G felony, rising to a Class E felony for a qualifying prior conviction. The detail that surprises most people is how the statute is written. It does not require a real child. It reaches the solicitation of "a person the defendant believes to be" a child under 16. That is exactly why internet stings work as prosecutions. And it is why it is no defense that the person on the other end was an undercover detective. In State v. Fraley, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a conviction where the "child" was a detective the defendant believed to be 14. The court held that the defendant's own belief controls, and that a person's words to that officer fell within the statute's broad definitions of "entice" and "advise." We build the defense around what the statute actually requires the State to prove: the intent to commit an unlawful sex act and the purpose of arranging a meeting. We do not rely on the "there was no actual minor" argument, which the law rules out. Consent is also not a defense under this statute. What happens if someone appears at the meeting? We represent clients facing the most serious version of this charge. Under G.S. 14-202.3, the charge becomes a Class D felony if the defendant, or anyone the defendant was arranging the meeting for, actually appears at the arranged meeting place. This is why sting operations are structured to end in a meet-up. North Carolina raised these penalties effective December 1, 2025 (S.L. 2025-70), moving the completed-meeting scenario up to Class D and significantly increasing the potential penalties. Appearance at the location is what triggers the enhancement. So the facts around any meeting (who proposed it, what was said, and what actually happened) are central to how we approach the case. When does this become a federal case under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)? We defend clients whose online cases are charged federally, most often under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). That statute prohibits using the internet to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor into unlawful sexual activity, or attempting to do so. The federal penalties are typically more severe than the state charge. § 2422(b) carries a mandatory minimum of not less than 10 years and up to life. As with the state statute, factual impossibility is not a defense. The Fourth Circuit held in United States v. Engle that the statute targets the attempt to obtain a minor's agreement, not a completed act, and requires only a "substantial step" plus criminal intent. Its en banc rule in United States v. Hamrick confirms that an undercover officer target does not defeat an attempt charge. In North Carolina, these cases proceed in the Eastern District (E.D.N.C., which includes Wake County) or the Middle District (M.D.N.C., which includes Durham County). There is effectively no statute of limitations. The closest comparable federal offense, travel to engage in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor, carried an average sentence of 162 months, with 76% of those individuals convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum in fiscal year 2025. From the outset, we take on the early decisions about how to contest the case. Where possible, that includes the forum and the elements the government must prove. Is entrapment a defense in an internet sting? We represent clients in officer-initiated online cases where entrapment is the central defense. North Carolina recognizes entrapment where law enforcement induced the offense through persuasion, trickery, or fraud and the criminal design originated with the government rather than the defendant. In State v. Keller, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that a defendant was entitled to an entrapment instruction, and that a defendant can deny criminal intent and still raise the defense. The court reached that holding where the evidence showed the person was not predisposed, had never engaged in sexual activity with an underage child, repeatedly said they would wait until the detective could give legal consent, and relented only after the undercover detective threatened to find someone else. Who first introduced the sexual subject matter, who pushed for the meeting, and whether there was any predisposition before the government made contact are the questions we examine closely. In these cases, the officers' own conduct can be central to the defense. The stakes at the resolution stage are real. In North Carolina's federal districts, the overwhelming majority of sentenced defendants were convicted by guilty plea in fiscal year 2024, about 99.2% in the Eastern District and 96.5% in the Middle District, yet sexual-abuse cases go to trial at a notably higher rate than other federal cases. Whether a case should be tried or resolved is a decision we make with each client based on the specific evidence, not a default. What to Expect When You Contact Us When you reach out to us, the first step is a confidential consultation about your situation: what has happened, what stage things are at, and what the state or federal government appears to have. Because these cases are frequently built from electronic communications, two things matter early. First, preserve evidence rather than deleting anything. Second, be careful about talking to investigators before you have a lawyer. We will walk you through where your case stands, whether it is likely to remain in state court or move to federal court, and the charges and consequences you realistically face. We will also explain the defenses available to you, including entrapment, the elements the government must actually prove, and the collateral consequences that need to be planned for from day one. From there, the firm builds a defense strategy specific to your facts. Strategic Defense Against Complex Internet Solicitation Allegations When facing serious allegations involving the solicitation of a minor by computer, securing experienced legal counsel is critical, as these cases often involve complex digital forensic evidence and high-stakes federal and state investigation protocols. Attorney Patrick Roberts offers a focused defense practice with  expertise in navigating the intersection of technology and criminal law. A former prosecutor with over two decades of courtroom experience, Mr. Roberts has dedicated his career to the rigorous defense of complex sex offense cases, including those originating from Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force investigations. His approach involves a meticulous audit of government-acquired digital data, challenging the prosecution's evidentiary burden, and providing strategic litigation for clients facing both state and federal charges. Nationally recognized for his work—including an AV Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell and a consistent track record of high-level trial advocacy—Mr. Roberts provides the dedicated and sophisticated representation necessary when defending against sensitive and life-altering accusations. • AV Preeminent Rating: Consistently awarded this peer-nominated credential for professional excellence by Martindale-Hubbell for eight consecutive years (2018–2026). • National Association of Distinguished Counsel: Repeatedly selected for inclusion in the "Nation's Top 1 Percent" of attorneys, a recognition held for multiple years including 2025 and 2026. • Duke Law Education: Earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from Duke University School of Law, providing a foundational background for complex criminal litigation and procedural strategy. • Former Prosecutor Perspective: Leveraging four years of experience as an Assistant District Attorney across three North Carolina districts—including specialized service as a juvenile sex crimes prosecutor—to anticipate government litigation tactics. • Digital Forensic Training: Completed the "Defending Digital Sex Crimes Bootcamp" (2026) and maintains ongoing expertise in auditing government digital evidence utilized in Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) investigations. • Published Author: Co-authored *Strategies for Defending Internet Pornography Cases*, a professional text detailing the analysis of electronic documents and the utilization of expert witnesses in technology-based prosecutions. Client Review...Their actions and handling of my case have not only helped to restore my faith in the legal system but in myself. Too often we underestimate the power of a smile, a kind word, a listening ear or an honest act of caring, all of which have the potential to help turn a life around. My thanks to A. Patrick Roberts. — Review by a verified client via Avvo Peer Endorsement Patrick is a thoughtful and experienced attorney. When I have a client needing representation in the Raleigh area in his areas of practice, he would be my referral of choice. — Peer endorsement by a fellow North Carolina trial attorney via Avvo Disclaimer: The client reviews and peer endorsements displayed are authentic testimonials and comments provided by clients and fellow attorneys. Every case is unique and must be evaluated individually; past client experiences and case results do not guarantee, promise, or predict similar outcomes in any future matter. Case Results Taking the time to examine what a lawyer has successfully done for others helps ensure your case is in capable hands. Here is a look at real case results handled by Attorney Patrick Roberts: • Investigation Into Child Sexual Abuse Material: The client faced charges involving the downloading of child sexual abuse material based on IP address tracking. After law enforcement executed a search warrant and obtained a confession, Mr. Roberts presented mitigating evidence to the District Attorney's office, resulting in a probationary resolution. ○ Outcome: Probation with permission to transfer supervision to the client's new state of residency. • Exploitation of a Minor Allegations: An individual was charged with two counts of second-degree exploitation of a minor related to online communications. Attorney Patrick Roberts provided psychological evaluations to the prosecution, successfully negotiating a resolution that avoided prison time, felony convictions, and sex offender registration. ○ Outcome: Pleaded to two misdemeanors with probation, avoiding prison, a felony conviction, and sex offender registration. • Online Child Exploitation Charges: The client faced two counts of second-degree exploitation of a minor involving online photo exchanges and communication. By presenting the client's psychological history and expert evaluations to prosecutors, Mr. Roberts secured a plea agreement that avoided incarceration and sex offender registry requirements. ○ Outcome: Pleaded to two non-sex offense misdemeanors with probation, successfully* avoiding prison, felony convictions, and sex offender registration. *Disclaimer: Case outcomes depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future legal matter. Protecting Your Rights in Complex Criminal Matters Charges involving the solicitation of a minor are among the most serious allegations an individual can face, carrying life-altering consequences at both the state and federal levels. If you are under investigation or facing charges, early legal intervention is critical to mounting an effective defense against allegations involving complex intent and electronic evidence. Patrick Roberts Law offers the focused, authoritative counsel required to navigate the nuances of these cases and aggressively challenge the prosecution’s burden of proof. Based in Wake County, we provide experienced representation for clients in Raleigh, Cary, Apex, Holly Springs, Garner, and Fuquay-Varina, while managing complex criminal matters in jurisdictions throughout North Carolina. If you require legal guidance or representation, contact the law firm at www.patrickroberts.law to schedule a confidential consultation. Use the law firm’s Sex Offense Search Tool to check North Carolina felony classifications, potential prison sentences, and sex offender registration requirements. Learn how criminal defense attorney Patrick Roberts approaches handling these charges. We limit the volume of active cases to ensure that our staff can provide consistent, comprehensive attention to every matter we handle. Disclaimer: This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. North Carolina expunction law is almost entirely statutory and subject to legislative change, and how these rules apply depends on the specific facts of your case. For guidance on your situation, consult a licensed North Carolina attorney.

Patrick Roberts Law is a North Carolina criminal defense firm that defends people accused of and investigated for sex offenses. If you are looking for a lawyer to handle a sex offense matter in North Carolina, at the state level or in federal court, you are on the right page. We represent the accused, not the state. The firm is led by Patrick Roberts, a North Carolina criminal defense attorney. He handles these cases across North Carolina from offices in Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, and Cary. Sex offense allegations carry consequences that reach well beyond a prison term: mandatory registration, possible GPS monitoring, and lifetime restrictions on where you can live and work. The choices made early in a case often shape everything that follows. This page explains the specific charges we defend, what North Carolina and federal law actually require the government to prove, and what you can expect when you contact the firm. Types of North Carolina Sex Offense Charges We Defend We handle the full range of North Carolina and federal sex offenses, including the categories below. For each one, the law defines precise elements the government must prove and precise penalties on conviction. It is in those details that a defense is built. Statutory Rape and Statutory Sexual Offense We represent clients charged with statutory rape and statutory sexual offense. In this group of offenses, liability turns on the ages of the people involved rather than on force or lack of consent. When the defendant is 18 or older and the child is under 13, North Carolina charges the case under G.S. 14-27.23 (statutory rape of a child by an adult) or G.S. 14-27.28 (statutory sexual offense with a child by an adult). Both are Class B1 felonies. The statutes set a mandatory minimum of 300 months of active imprisonment, enrollment in satellite-based monitoring, and, on written findings of aggravating brutality or scope, a possible sentence up to life without parole. Where the defendant is at least 12 and at least four years older than a child under 13, the conduct is charged as first-degree statutory rape or first-degree statutory sexual offense under G.S. 14-27.24 and G.S. 14-27.29. These are also Class B1 felonies, but they are sentenced on the ordinary structured-sentencing grid. There, Class B1 carries a presumptive-range minimum of 192 to 240 months at the lowest prior record level. When the child is 15 or younger, G.S. 14-27.25 and G.S. 14-27.30 grade the offense by the age gap: six or more years older is a Class B1 felony, while more than four but fewer than six years older is a Class C felony. Lawful marriage between the parties is an explicit exception. We understand the feature that makes these cases unusual. North Carolina treats them as strict-liability offenses. That means neither the child's consent nor the defendant's honest belief about the child's age is a defense, as the North Carolina Supreme Court confirmed in State v. Anthony. Because those defenses are off the table, we concentrate the defense where it can actually make a difference: the identity of the person charged, whether the act occurred, the exact dates of birth and the resulting age gap, and the reliability of the accusing account. In the "15 or younger" cases in particular, shaving the age difference below six years can drop a Class B1 exposure to Class C, and below four years can defeat the charge entirely. That is why we treat birth-date proof and any marriage evidence as high-leverage facts. Taking Indecent Liberties with Children We represent clients charged with taking indecent liberties with children under G.S. 14-202.1. The statute applies when a person 16 or older and at least five years older than a child under 16 willfully takes an immoral, improper, or indecent liberty with that child for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, or commits a lewd or lascivious act. It is a Class F felony, carrying a presumptive minimum of 13 to 16 months at the lowest prior record level. It is also a registration-triggering offense. Indecent liberties is broad by design: no touching and no completed act is required. The sexual-purpose element can be inferred from the defendant's conduct, as North Carolina's courts held in State v. Hartness and State v. Quarg. Indecent liberties is so often stacked onto or substituted for statutory charges arising from the same events. For that reason, we scrutinize the specificity of the accusing account, the five-year age gap, and whether the evidence genuinely supports the required sexual purpose. Sexual Exploitation of a Minor (Child Sexual Abuse Material) We represent clients charged with sexual exploitation of a minor, the North Carolina offenses covering child sexual abuse material. The state grades these offenses in three degrees. First-degree sexual exploitation under G.S. 14-190.16 covers producing such material or using a minor to create it. It is generally a Class C felony, with a presumptive minimum of 58 to 73 months at the lowest prior record level. The newest provisions, covering modified depictions of an identifiable minor and child sex dolls, are Class D felonies. Second-degree exploitation under G.S. 14-190.17, which includes distribution, is a Class E felony. Third-degree exploitation under G.S. 14-190.17A, knowing possession, is a Class H felony. Mistake of age is not a defense to any degree. A 2024 amendment extended all three degrees to cover digitally modified depictions of an identifiable minor and child sex dolls modeled on an identifiable minor, North Carolina's direct response to AI-generated material. A critical feature of these cases is that each image can be charged as a separate count, as the Court of Appeals recognized in State v. Howell. As a result, a single device can generate dozens of counts and multiply the potential sentence. We build the defense around the two elements the state must actually prove: knowledge and possession or control of the specific files. Automatic caching, shared or compromised devices, and unopened downloads all are directly relevant to whether a person "knowingly" possessed anything. For any charge based on a modified image, the law and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition require that the depiction be of a real, identifiable minor rather than purely virtual imagery. These same allegations are frequently pursued in federal court, where the exposure is far greater. We defend them in both systems. Online Solicitation of a Minor and Internet-Sting Cases We represent clients charged with solicitation of a child by computer under G.S. 14-202.3, the statute behind most internet-sting arrests. It applies when a person 16 or older uses an electronic device, intending to commit an unlawful sex act, to entice a child under 16 (at least five years younger), or someone the defendant believes to be such a child, to meet. Liability turns on the defendant's belief. For that reason, it is no defense that the "child" was an undercover officer, as the Court of Appeals held in State v. Fraley. The offense is a Class G felony. It rises to Class E for a qualifying prior. After a 2025 amendment, it rises to a Class D felony if the defendant actually appears at the arranged meeting place. These cases exist against a backdrop of intense enforcement. Internet-sting operations are a staple of state and federal enforcement, and the task forces that run them make thousands of arrests every year. Because the "there was no real child" fact is unavailable, we focus the defense on the questions that decide these cases. The first is entrapment: who first raised the sexual and meeting proposals, and whether the design originated with law enforcement rather than the client. The second is whether the messages actually show an intent to commit an unlawful act and to arrange a meeting. The North Carolina Supreme Court's decision in State v. Keller confirms that a defendant can be entitled to an entrapment instruction on credible evidence of inducement and lack of predisposition, even while denying criminal intent. These are among the cases the firm handles most closely. Federal Sex Offense Charges in the Eastern and Middle Districts of North Carolina We defend federal sex offense charges, which frequently arise from the same conduct as state cases but carry harsher mandatory penalties. Production of child sexual abuse material under 18 U.S.C. § 2251 carries a 15-year mandatory minimum. Receipt and distribution under §§ 2252 and 2252A carry a 5-year minimum. Online enticement of a minor under § 2422(b) and transportation of a minor under § 2423(a) each carry a 10-year minimum up to life. There is effectively no statute of limitations on these offenses, and federal law offers no "no real child" defense to enticement or attempt. Federal cases from Wake County are prosecuted in the Eastern District of North Carolina, and those from Durham County in the Middle District. Federal sex offense cases resolve differently from ordinary prosecutions, and we prepare you for that reality. Sexual abuse offenses draw long terms, with an average federal prison sentence of 230 months in fiscal year 2025. Defendants in these cases go to trial more often than most: 10.8% of people sentenced for federal sexual abuse were convicted at trial in fiscal year 2024, compared with 2.7% across all other federal offenses. Detention is common: 76.2% of federal pretrial defendants were detained and never released in the year ending September 30, 2025. The overwhelming majority of federal cases end in a plea, with 820 of 827 people sentenced in the Eastern District of North Carolina convicted by guilty plea in fiscal year 2024. We contest the government's proof of the interstate-commerce, knowledge, and purpose elements. We litigate entrapment where officers initiated the contact, and we prepare every case as one that may have to be tried rather than negotiated. For more information on sex offenses and the penalty it carries, you may use the law firm's Sex Offense Search Tool to look into North Carolina sex offenses, view felony classifications, potential prison sentences, and sex offender registration requirements. What to Expect When You Contact the Firm When you contact us, the first step is a confidential consultation. You can describe your situation: whether you have learned you are under investigation, have been contacted by law enforcement, have been arrested, or have already been charged. We will then explain how North Carolina or federal law applies to the specific facts and what the realistic exposure and options are. You will get a direct assessment, not a sales pitch. From there, we work to understand the government's evidence before deciding on a strategy. That means identifying what the state or the federal government would actually have to prove, examining how any digital evidence was obtained and handled, pinning down the ages and dates that drive the charge, and looking hard at how the investigation began. This is particularly important in internet-sting cases, where who initiated and escalated the contact can be decisive. These cases can be brought in state court, in the Eastern or Middle District of North Carolina, or both. We also assess early which court will hear the case, along with the registration, monitoring, firearms, and (where relevant) immigration consequences that a resolution would carry. Preparation is done as though the case may go to trial, which strengthens your position whether the case is ultimately tried or resolved another way. Throughout, we keep you informed about what is happening and why, and about the decisions that are yours to make. One point matters from the very first contact: what you say to investigators can shape the entire case. The sooner we are involved, the more we can do to protect your position. Skilled Representation in North Carolina Sex Offense Litigation For individuals navigating the complexities of state or federal sex offense allegations in North Carolina, the defense strategy employed often determines the long-term impact on a client's freedom and future. Patrick Roberts, the Managing Partner of Patrick Roberts Law PLLC, brings over two decades of legal experience to this high-stakes practice, having built his career on a foundation of both prosecutorial and defense litigation. A former Assistant District Attorney with extensive experience across multiple prosecutorial districts, Mr. Roberts leverages his deep understanding of government evidence and investigative tactics to build rigorous defense strategies, particularly in cases involving Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task forces, digital forensics, and mandatory registry requirements. With a practice dedicated exclusively to criminal defense, Mr. Roberts has handled more than 250 felony sex crime cases, and his expertise is frequently sought to guide complex litigation and trial strategy. Admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and multiple federal districts, he provides comprehensive representation tailored to the unique evidentiary and legal challenges inherent in sexual assault and exploitation charges. • Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Rating: Earned an annual peer-reviewed professional excellence rating for eight consecutive years (2018–2026), indicating the highest level of professional standing and ethical standards. • Duke University School of Law Alumnus: Juris Doctor graduate (2000) with formal advanced training at the National Criminal Defense College and the Gerry Spence Trial Lawyers College. • National Association of Distinguished Counsel: Recognized by inclusion in the "Nation's Top 1 Percent" of attorneys for six separate years, including 2025 and 2026. • Former Prosecutor Perspective: Served four years as an Assistant District Attorney (2003–2007) across three North Carolina prosecutorial districts, including specialized experience as a juvenile sex crimes prosecutor. • Digital Evidence Specialization: Completed intensive forensic training programs, including the "Defending Digital Sex Crimes Bootcamp," specifically focused on the audit and defense of complex Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) evidence. • Published Authority on Sex Crime Defense: Co-authored the legal text *Strategies for Defending Internet Pornography Cases*, providing strategic analysis on utilizing expert witnesses and managing technological evidence in complex sex offense allegations. Client Review...Attorney Roberts and his staff made us feel very comfortable and were very professional. Every time our son had a court appearance my husband and I were notified several weeks in advance. When there were questions or concerns about the case, Attorney Roberts always notified us personally. — Review by a verified client via Avvo Peer Endorsement I endorse this lawyer. Patrick is a fantastic attorney who is dedicated to his clients' interests and truly cares for his clients. He has the experience and trial skills necessary to achieve the results his clients need. I recommend anybody in need of a criminal defense attorney use him. — Peer endorsement by a fellow North Carolina trial attorney via Avvo Disclaimer: The client reviews and peer endorsements displayed are authentic testimonials and comments provided by clients and fellow attorneys. Every case is unique and must be evaluated individually; past client experiences and case results do not guarantee, promise, or predict similar outcomes in any future matter. Case Results Understanding the specific outcomes a lawyer has delivered helps you feel confident in your decision. Below are examples of past cases resolved by Attorney Patrick Roberts: • Second-Degree Exploitation of a Child Charges: Mr. Roberts utilized a professional mental health evaluation to negotiate a favorable resolution for the client, resulting in a plea to non-sex offense misdemeanors instead of felony charges. Facing: Class E felony prosecution carrying up to 7+ years in prison, a permanent felony record, and mandatory sex offender registration. Outcome: Two misdemeanors with probation; no prison time, no felony conviction, and no sex offender registration. • Indecent Liberties with a Child Allegations: Attorney Patrick Roberts identified significant inconsistencies in the accuser's statements, prompting the prosecution to reduce the charges to a misdemeanor assault. Facing: Class F felony prosecution carrying up to nearly 5 years in prison and mandatory sex offender registration. Outcome: Misdemeanor probation with no prison time and no sex offender registration. • Indecent Liberties with a Child Investigation: Counsel intervened during the preliminary investigation and presented exculpatory evidence, resulting in a substantial reduction of the charges. Facing: Formal Class F felony indictment carrying up to nearly 5 years in prison and mandatory sex offender registration. Outcome: Misdemeanor probation with no prison time and no sex offender registration. Disclaimer: Case outcomes depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future legal matter. Professional Legal Defense for North Carolina Sex Offense Charges If you are facing sex offense allegations, the implications for your future are significant and require immediate, strategic legal counsel. Patrick Roberts Law PLLC provides dedicated criminal defense representation for clients across every county in North Carolina, with a specific focus on the legal needs of those in Wake County communities, including Raleigh, Cary, Apex, Holly Springs, Garner, and Fuquay-Varina. Whether dealing with state or federal charges, our firm is committed to thoroughly scrutinizing government evidence and protecting your rights throughout every stage of the legal process. Early intervention is critical in building a rigorous defense. We invite you to contact us for a confidential consultation to discuss your specific situation and potential exposure. Please visit www.patrickroberts.law to learn more about how our firm can advocate for your defense and guide you through these complex legal challenges. The firm maintains a selective caseload to protect the integrity of its defense strategies and the thoroughness of its trial preparation. Disclaimer: This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. North Carolina criminal law is almost entirely statutory and subject to legislative change, and how these rules apply depends on the specific facts of your case. For guidance on your situation, consult a licensed North Carolina attorney.