A Connecticut tennis coach will serve eight years in prison after being convicted of sexually enticing a 12-year-old he was instructing in more than 9,000 texts.
Tyler Purskey, 34, appeared in court in New Haven on Thursday and was sentenced by Judge Elpedio N. Vitale to 15 years in prison, suspended after eight years served, followed by 15 years of sex offender probation, according to State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of New Haven John P. Doyle Jr.
In January, a New Haven jury found Purskey guilty of enticing a minor and two counts of risk of injury to a minor.
CT tennis instructor found guilty of sending sexually explicit messages to 12-year-old student
Doyle said that evidence at his trial showed that over the course of two months in 2019, Purskey sent more than 9,000 text messages, including hundreds of explicit messages, to a 12-year-old child.
The messages sent to the child were sent to attempt to engage the child in sexual activity, Doyle said.
At the time the texts were sent, Purskey was the child’s tennis instructor.
“The New Haven State’s Attorney’s Office is committed to working with local, state and federal partners to identify and prosecute those who exploit children,” Doyle said in a statement. “Those who victimize children, our most vulnerable members of society, need to be held accountable for their actions.”
The case was investigated by the Guilford Police Department and was prosecuted by Assistant State’s Attorney Sarah E. Jones and Supervisory Assistant State’s Attorney David J. Strollo, with assistance from Inspectors Michael Mastropetre and Kevin Grenier.
Attorney Christopher DeMatteo of Pattis & Paz law firm, who is representing Purskey, told the Hartford Courant Saturday that “there was no sexual activity in this case, just communication. The state prosecuted on a theory that the texts constituted ‘grooming behavior.’
“This might be the first standalone grooming prosecution, one without a completed or even attempted sex act, under the Enticing and Risk of Injury statutes,” added DeMatteo. “I argued to the trial court and to the jury that the facts did not fit squarely into those laws, and I would make that argument again to the Appellate Court.”
