Title: Bloom v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 010600
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: November 2, 2001

PRESENT: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, and 
Lemons, JJ., and Stephenson, S.J. 
 
GREGORY MICHAEL BLOOM 
 
 
 
OPINION BY  
v.  Record No. 010600 
SENIOR JUSTICE ROSCOE B. STEPHENSON, JR.  
 
 
 
November 2, 2001 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the record 
supports the trial court's finding that the defendant was 
sufficiently identified as the person who had made certain out-
of-court statements that constituted admissible party 
admissions. 
I 
 
A jury in the Circuit Court of Roanoke County convicted 
Gregory Michael Bloom of (1) attempting to take indecent 
liberties with a child, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-26 and -
370(5), and (2) solicitation to commit sodomy, in violation of 
Code § 18.2-29.  The jury fixed Bloom's punishment at 12 months 
in jail for each offense.  Thereafter, the trial court sentenced 
Bloom in accordance with the jury's verdict. 
 
The Court of Appeals affirmed Bloom's convictions.  Bloom 
v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 364, 542 S.E.2d 18 (2001).  We 
awarded Bloom this appeal, limited to the previously stated 
issue. 
II 
 
Samantha Nicole Neff testified that, about November 1998, 
she began to communicate via the Internet with a person whose 
screen name was "Philter425."  At the time, Samantha was 13 
years of age; however, she told Philter425 that she was 15.  
According to Samantha, she and Philter425 continued to 
communicate via the Internet for two to three months, and the 
communications occurred "[m]aybe like once every other day, [or] 
like twice a week." 
 
The person identified as Philter425 told Samantha that he 
was 28 years old, that his name was Greg, that he was originally 
from Ohio, and that he had a three-year-old daughter.  Samantha 
told Philter425 that she was 5'8" tall, that she had brown hair 
and brown eyes, and that she was sexy.  Samantha testified that, 
in early February 1999, Philter425 offered to buy her alcohol 
and to take her on dates.  Philter425 also offered to give her 
$100 if she would sneak out of her house because, as Samantha 
had previously told him, she was "grounded." 
 
Lisa Neff Akers, Samantha's mother, testified that, in 
early February 1999, based upon information she had received 
from Samantha's school, she called the police and spoke with 
Detective Scott Smith.  Immediately thereafter, Akers went 
online, posing as "Nikki4403," Samantha's Internet screen name.  
Akers received a message from a person identified as Philter425, 
stating, "Hi sexy.  Looking forward to Friday/Saturday."  Akers, 
 
2
as Nikki4403, responded that she would communicate with 
Philter425 again on the night of Friday, February 5, 1999.  
Akers then contacted Detective Smith. 
 
Detective Smith testified that, based on the information he 
had received from Samantha and her mother, he logged onto the 
Internet that Friday night as Nikki4403.  Shortly thereafter, 
Smith received an "instant message"1 from Philter425, and the 
following exchange occurred via the Internet: 
Philter425:  hey, baby...what's the scoop? 
Nikki4403:  just chillin 
Philter425:  are you un-grounded now 
Nikki4403:  yea kinda 
Philter425:  kinda? 
Nikki4403:  can get out tonite 
Philter425:  you can :o) 
Nikki4403:  what ya have in mind 
Philter425:  letting you meet my daughter so you can 
babysit tomorrow for me Philter425:  :o) 
 
 
Philter425:  or whatever you want to do 
 
Nikki4403:  not babysit 
 
Nikki4403:  I'm alone its cool 
 
Philter425:  getting drunk and having wild monkey sex 
 
Nikki4403:  sounds like a plan 
                     
 
1 An "instant message" permits parties to communicate 
virtually instantaneously via the Internet.  A message typed and 
sent appears immediately on the addressee's computer screen. 
 
3
 
Philter425:  cool 
 
Nikki4403:  what sex do you like 
 
Philter425:  good sex 
 
Philter425:  what do you mean 
 
Nikki4403:  how do you like it 
 
Philter425:  well, we'll play that part as it 
                  comes...I like what you said before about  
                  just chillin 
 
 
Philter425:  is that cool? 
 
 
Nikki4403:  I'm for anything but up the ass 
 
 
Philter425:  ok...as long as I can lick and suck your pussy 
 
 
Nikki4403:  cool 
 
 
Nikki4403:  where 
 
 
Philter425: you like that 
 
 
Nikki4403:  oh yeah 
 
 
Philter425:  here I guess 
 
 
Philter425:  whereabouts are you 
 
 
Philter425:  what part of vinton 
 
 
Nikki4403:  Cave Spring 
 
 
Philter425:  near Franklin? 
 
 
Philter425:  Franklin/Ellectric? 
 
 
Nikki4403:  pick me up 
 
 
Philter425:  where? 
 
 
Nikki4403:  garst mill park 
 
 
Philter425:  never heard of it 
 
 
4
 
Nikki4403:  near apartments maybe sens souci 
 
Philter425:  tell you what...I just got home  
                  ...gotta shower and find a babysitter for  
                  real tomorrow...take a cab here (I'll pay)  
                  and then I'll drop you off where ever you need 
                  to be 
 
 
Nikki4403:  i'll sneak out around 1000 want to you pick me  
                 up 
 
 
Philter425:  but I don't know where you are talking about 
 
 
Nikki4403:  Hills cave spring corner electric rd 
 
 
Philter425:  I know Hills...Caves Spring and Brambleton 
 
 
Philter425:  right? 
 
 
Nikki4403:  aight  
 
 
Nikki4403:  at payphone burger king 
 
 
Philter425:  ok...what will you be wearing? 
 
 
Nikki4403:  what do you want me to 
 
 
Philter425:  something you...just so I can find you 
 
 
Nikki4403:  blue jeans yellow jacket i'll be the cute one 
 
 
Philter425:  the cute one...are you bringing someone else? 
 
 
Nikki4403:  no just me 
 
 
Philter425:  oh...ok...exactly what time 
 
 
Nikki 4403:  1030 I got to walk what will you be in 
 
 
Philter425:  Silver Tercel...just walk on up 
 
 
Nikki4403:  cool cya babe 
 
 
Philter425:  bye bye sweetie 
 
 
5
 
Based upon this communication, Detective Smith surmised 
that the person identified as Philter425 would arrive at the 
designated place at 10:30 p.m., driving a silver Tercel 
automobile.  Therefore, Smith arranged to have several police 
officers accompany him to that location. 
 
At 10:34 p.m., a 1992 silver Toyota Tercel entered the 
Burger King parking lot, paused near the unattended pay 
telephone, and then departed.  The officers immediately stopped 
the vehicle, which was driven by Bloom and registered in his 
name. 
 
Detective Smith questioned Bloom about whether he had been 
online that evening as Philter425.  Bloom initially denied, but 
eventually admitted, that he had sent the messages under the 
screen name Philter425. 
III 
 
Prior to trial, Bloom filed a motion in limine, seeking to 
prohibit the Commonwealth from introducing into evidence all 
statements made by Philter425 to Samantha via the Internet.  
Bloom asserted that these statements "should not be admitted 
into evidence because there is no reliable evidence to suggest 
that [he] actually made the statements." 
 
In its response to Bloom's motion in limine, the 
Commonwealth represented to the trial court the following: 
 
6
Samantha Neff will testify that she posted a "profile"  
of personal information on [the Internet], and that 
sometime in November 1998 she was contacted by 
Philter425.  She began having instant messaging 
conversations with Philter425 on an almost daily 
basis.  Over time, Philter425 indicated that he was 
male, that his first name was Greg, that he was 
originally from Ohio, that he was 28 years old, that 
he had a young daughter, and that his home telephone 
number was 985-0430.  [Bloom's] first name is Greg, he 
has a three year old daughter, he was born April 25, 
1970, and his home telephone number is 985-0430. 
 
. . . On February 1, 1999, . . . Samantha Neff 
had an instant messaging conversation with Philter425, 
during which Philter425 asked Samantha to go out on a 
date with him, offering money and alcohol if she would 
come out. 
 
. . . The personal facts obtained by Samantha 
Neff over time from Philter425 match the personal 
information of [Bloom], who admits using the screen 
name Philter425 and engaging in instant messaging with 
Detective Smith on February 5th.  These facts, plus the 
ongoing nature of the online relationship with 
[Samantha] . . . are sufficient to identify [Bloom] as 
the person making contact with Samantha Neff using the 
screen name Philter425. 
 
Based upon these representations by the Commonwealth, which 
were unchallenged by Bloom, the trial court concluded that Bloom 
was sufficiently identified as the person who had communicated 
with Samantha via the Internet as Philter425.  The court, 
therefore, overruled Bloom's motion in limine and permitted 
Samantha to testify to the statements made to her by Philter425 
under the party-admission exception to the hearsay rule.  The 
court aptly noted, however, that whether the statements were 
made by Bloom was "one of the ultimate questions to be 
determined by the jury." 
 
7
IV 
 
Bloom contends in this appeal, as he did in the trial court 
and the Court of Appeals, that Samantha's testimony about 
statements made to her by Philter425 was inadmissible because 
the Commonwealth failed to show that he actually had made them.  
Thus, Bloom asserts, the statements were not admissible under 
the party-admission exception to the hearsay rule. 
It is well established, as Bloom concedes, that an 
out-of-court statement by a criminal defendant, if 
relevant, is admissible as a party admission, under an 
exception to the rule against hearsay.  See, e.g., Prince 
v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 610, 613, 324 S.E.2d 660, 662 
(1985); Land v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 223, 229, 176 S.E.2d 
586, 590-91 (1970).  The identity of the person making the 
out-of-court statement may be established by either direct 
or circumstantial evidence.   Atlantic Coast Realty Co. v. 
Robertson, 135 Va. 247, 261, 116 S.E. 476, 480 (1923).  
"The measure of the burden of proof with respect to factual 
questions underlying the admissibility of evidence is proof 
by a preponderance of the evidence."  Witt v. Commonwealth, 
215 Va. 670, 674, 212 S.E.2d 293, 296 (1975).  The trial 
court determines these facts, and a jury determines the 
weight of the evidence and the credibility of the 
 
8
witnesses.  Mullins v. Commonwealth, 113 Va. 787, 791, 75 
S.E. 193, 195-96 (1912). 
We think the record in the present case, when viewed 
in its totality, clearly supports the trial court's 
finding, for the purpose of the admissibility of evidence, 
that Bloom was the person who had made the statements to 
Samantha via the Internet.  Philter425 revealed that his 
name is Greg, which is Bloom's given name.  He told 
Samantha that he had a three-year-old daughter, as did 
Bloom.  He also told Samantha that he was 28 years of age, 
which was Bloom's age.  Philter425 had learned from 
Samantha that she had been grounded, and, when Detective 
Smith, posing as Nikki4403, communicated with Philter425, 
Philter425 began the exchange by asking whether Nikki4403 
was "ungrounded."  Moreover, Philter425 agreed to meet 
Nikki4403 at a designated place, and Bloom appeared at that 
place and admitted to Smith that he had, in fact, 
communicated with Nikki4403 via the Internet that evening. 
Bloom further contends that "[t]he flaw of the 
Commonwealth's argument from the post-trial perspective is 
that, at trial, the Commonwealth failed to sufficiently 
prove a nexus between the Philter425 personal facts 
obtained by Samantha . . . and those of [Bloom]."  
Continuing, Bloom asserts that "[n]o person testified at 
 
9
trial as to:  [his] age . . . , whether he was from Ohio 
. . . , or the digits of his phone number.  The only 
biographical information about [Bloom] that was actually 
proven at trial was that he had a young daughter." 
 
As previously stated, matters regarding the 
admissibility of evidence, including underlying factual 
issues, are solely within the province of a trial court.  
Mullins, 113 Va. at 791, 75 S.E. at 195-96.  We have also 
held that a unilateral avowal of counsel of testimony that 
could be presented constitutes a proper proffer, if 
unchallenged.  Whittaker v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 966, 969, 
234 S.E.2d 79, 81 (1977). 
In the present case, the trial court, in ruling on 
Bloom's motion in limine, relied upon facts submitted by 
the Commonwealth in its response to the motion and 
determined that Bloom had been sufficiently identified as 
the person who had made certain out-of-court statements.  
The facts so submitted by the Commonwealth constituted an 
avowal of counsel of the testimony that would be relied 
upon at trial.  This avowal of counsel was not challenged 
by Bloom when the motion in limine was argued or at trial.  
Therefore, the trial court was entitled to rely on the 
unchallenged pretrial proffer in deciding the evidentiary 
issue, and the Commonwealth was not required to prove these 
 
10
facts at trial to establish the admissibility of the 
statements. 
V 
 
In conclusion, we hold that the trial court did not 
err in admitting into evidence certain out-of-court 
statements because Bloom was sufficiently identified as the 
person who had made the statements via the Internet.  
Therefore, for the reasons stated in this opinion, we will 
affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.2
Affirmed. 
                     
 
2 While we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 
conclude that its decision rests upon proper principles of law, 
we do not adopt its observation that "[c]onversations over the 
internet are analogous to telephone conversations."  Bloom, 34 
Va. App. at 369, 542 S.E.2d at 20.  For example, in telephone 
conversations, unlike communications via the Internet, the 
participants have the opportunity for voice recognition. 
 
11