In People v. Nakai (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 499, the defendant engaged in chats with a detective posing as a 12-year-old girl named Colleen. (Id. at pp. 501-502.) He sent her a picture of his erect penis, asked her if she would perform oral sex, and if she would like to engage in intercourse. (Id. at p. 502.) Colleen gave defendant a specific date and time to come to her house, as well as the address of a residence where law enforcement was planning to conduct an internet predator sting. (Id. at pp. 505-506.) On the appointed day, the police found defendant sitting in a car near the designated house three hours before the time Colleen had provided. (Id. at p. 506.) Defendant was charged with two counts of attempting to send or exhibit harmful material to a minor with the intent of seduction. (Ibid.) At trial, the court denied the defense's request for an instruction on section 313.1, subdivision (a). (Nakai, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 507.) The Court of Appeal "agreed with the trial court's conclusion that there is no evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive that, if accepted, would absolve defendant from guilt of the greater offense but not the lesser, because the evidence only demonstrates defendant's combined intents to arouse and seduce." (Id. at p. 508.)