Law360 (October 1, 2026, 9:23 PM EDT) -- The Michigan Court of Appeals has "conditionally reversed" a man's conviction for "child sexually abusive activity," with a panel finding that his counsel did not correctly challenge a police sting operation, causing him to be ineffectively represented at trial.

The three-judge panel found Wednesday that Aaron James Nowicki should be given a hearing to determine whether he was entrapped by police who used "unlawful inducement" techniques in an operation that involved posing as an underage person on an LGBTQ+ hookup platform. 

Nowicki did not indicate that he was looking for sex with an underage person before an undercover officer made potentially misleading references to himself being underage, the panel said in an unsigned opinion.

"In light of the above factors that weigh in favor of a finding that the police activity induced or instigated the criminal activity in this case, we conclude that there is a reasonable probability that an entrapment defense would have been successful had Nowicki's lawyer raised it," the panel said.

In August 2021, police in Genesee County were coordinating with local law enforcement in Chippewa County on a sting operation to locate individuals seeking sex with underage minors. The sting operation was led by Genesee Human Oppression Strike Team, or GHOST, and involved the creation of multiple social media profiles to chat with potential suspects, the opinion says.

The GHOST agents created a profile on popular hookup app Grindr, which requires users to be 18 years old to register an account. Officers did not mention in the profile bio that the fake user, "Joy_Boy," was underage, and used obscured photos of a 20-year-old police officer to make the profile look realistic, according to the case background in the opinion.

Nowicki began messaging the decoy account, and undercover officers responded by having Joy_Boy say he was "new" to the app, and was staying with his cousin. Joy_Boy then asked Nowicki his age, saying he didn't "want any problems," according to the opinion.

Nowicki responded that he was 30, though he was actually 37 at the time, the panel said. He told the jury he would get fewer matches on the app if he used his real age, according to the opinion. The officers then responded by having Joy_Boy say he could not drive because he wouldn't be getting his license until Halloween, according to the opinion.

The opinion includes excerpts from the conversation between police and Nowicki, with undercover agents repeatedly bringing up the issue of age. Police continued to have Joy_Boy reference that he was "younger" and did not "want trouble," according to the opinion.

Joy_Boy then messaged Nowicki the number "15" by itself during a conversation about whether Nowicki typically hooked up with younger men. The conversation lasted about an hour and ended with Nowicki agreeing to meet the decoy at a hotel, according to the opinion.

Nowicki arrived at the hotel and was arrested by police, who alleged Nowicki knew he was meeting an underage person for sex. Nowicki testified that he didn't recall seeing the "15" message, and maintained there was "no context" for the message. He also told the jury that the reference to Joy_Boy not yet having his driver's license was not unusual, as people can get their licenses at different ages, according to the opinion.

Law enforcement searched Nowicki's electronic devices and home, and did not obtain any evidence of child sexual abusive activity or materials. Police did find training materials from a course on how to identify grooming behavior and how to protect children against sexual assault, which Nowicki completed in 2009, according to the opinion.

Nowicki maintained throughout his trial that he believed he was talking to an 18-year-old and that he would not have messaged an underage person. A jury ultimately convicted Nowicki, and he was sentenced on one count of child sexually abusive activity, according to the opinion.

Nowicki appealed the conviction, claiming the evidence was insufficient and that he was given ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not raise an entrapment defense. The panel found that while there was evidence that suggested Nowicki should have known the decoy was underage, there is a reasonable probability that an entrapment defense would have been successful had his lawyer raised it.

Nowicki did not refer to wanting to engage in sex with an underage person. He largely focused his messages on what kinds of sexual activity the decoy was interested in, and whether he could "host" a meetup, according to the opinion.

The panel found that because police first introduced the potential for illegal activity, an entrapment defense would have had a reasonable probability of success. The panel stopped short of reaching a legal conclusion about whether Nowicki was entrapped, and left the issue to be sorted out by a trial court, the opinion says.

If the trial court finds that the police's conduct amounted to entrapment, it should set aside Nowicki's conviction and dismiss the case entirely, the opinion says.

The panel also ruled that apart from the question of entrapment, Nowicki should be resentenced because the sentencing guidelines in his case were initially miscalculated.

An attorney for Nowicki and a spokesperson for the Michigan attorney general did not respond to a request for comment.

Judges Michael J. Kelly, Sima G. Patel and Daniel S. Korobkin sat on the panel for the Michigan Court of Appeals.

The state is represented by Monica Wilson, John S. Pallas and Kahla D. Crino of the Michigan Attorney General's Office.

Nowicki is represented by Melissa Krauskopf of the Michigan State Appellate Defender's Office.

The case is People v. Nowicki, case number 369801, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.

--Editing by Amy French.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.