In People v. Jensen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 224, a police officer created an online profile identifying himself as a fictitious 13-year-old boy. (Jensen, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 227.) The officer chatted with the defendant in an online private chat. (Id. at pp. 227-228.) The defendant asked the officer, " 'do you shoot far when you cum' "; " 'how often do you jack off' "; " 'how big is your cock' "; and " 'are u hard right now.' " (Id. at p. 228.) The defendant told the officer that the two could " 'fuck 'till our heart's content.' " (Ibid.) The defendant asked the police officer "if he was 'hard right now' and touching himself." The police officer replied affirmatively. (Ibid.) The defendant sent the officer several photographs, including: (1) a man who was being simultaneously sodomized and orally copulated; (2) the defendant, naked, with an erect penis; (3) the defendant fully clothed. (Id. at pp. 227-228.) The defendant suggested that the officer move in with the defendant and his boyfriend. (Id. at pp. 230-231.) Eventually the officer arrested the defendant. (Id. at pp. 234-235.) The defendant was charged with 10 counts of attempted distribution or exhibition of harmful matter to a minor over the Internet ( 664, 288.2, subd. (b)). (Jensen, at p. 235.) On appeal, the defendant contended that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted misdemeanor distribution of harmful matter to a minor. ( 313.1, subd. (a).) (Jensen, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 243.) Before reaching this contention, the reviewing court concluded that the defendant's convictions had to be reversed because the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on the element of "intent to seduce." (Id. at pp. 240-241.) Nevertheless, the reviewing court went on to address the issue of the lesser included offense, in order to aid the trial court. (Id. at p. 241.) The reviewing court concluded that section 313.1 was a lesser included offense of section 288.2, subdivision (b). (Jensen, at p. 244.) The reviewing court further concluded that the element of "intent to seduce a minor" was defined as "enticing the minor to engage in a sexual act involving physical contact between the perpetrator and the minor." (Id. at pp. 240-241.) In other words, enticing a minor to masturbate herself would not satisfy the "intent to seduce" element of section 288.2, subdivision (b). The appellate court further held that a reasonable jury could have concluded that the defendant distributed the harmful matter to the police officer solely for the purpose of arousing himself, and not with a secondary intent of having physical contact with the purported minor. (Jensen, at pp. 244-245.) Therefore, the appellate court concluded that, on remand, the trial court must instruct the jury on the lesser included offense, if the offense is not time-barred. (Id. at p. 245.)