State of Iowa v. Corey Robert Fenton

Summary

The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove solicitation of commercial sexual activity because the defendant did not offer, promise, or provide anything of value in exchange for sex. Iowa's statutory definition requires an express or implied quid pro quo, and the defendant's statements about transportation, food, clothing, marijuana, and money were either facilitative, vague, or unrelated to an exchange for sexual activity. Because the evidence was insufficient, double jeopardy barred a retrial, requiring dismissal of the charge.