Title: Kelley v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 140837
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: April 16, 2015

PRESENT: Lemons, C.J., Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, McClanahan, and 
Powell, JJ., and Koontz, S.J. 
 
DAVID KELLEY 
 
 
 
 
  OPINION BY 
v.  Record No. 140837 
JUSTICE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN 
 
 
 
      April 16, 2015 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
A jury convicted David Kelley of two counts of 
distributing child pornography in violation of Code § 18.2-
374.1:1.  Kelley contends the evidence was insufficient to 
prove distribution because the peer-to-peer software1 he used to 
access and download child pornography automatically placed the 
child pornography files into a shared folder accessible to 
other users of the software.  We will affirm the judgment of 
the Court of Appeals upholding the convictions. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
 
Special Agent Chad Morris is employed by the Virginia 
State Police and assigned to the Northern Virginia/D.C./Metro 
Area Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force.  In 
connection with his work on the ICAC Task Force, Morris 
utilizes Ares, a peer-to-peer file-sharing program, to identify 
                     
 
1 "Peer-to-peer file-sharing software enables a communal 
network which exist[s] – as the name 'file-sharing' suggests – 
for users to share, swap, barter, or trade files between one 
another."  United States v. Wheelock, 772 F.3d 825, 832 n.4 
(8th Cir. 2014)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 
 
2 
the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of computers with files 
believed to contain child pornography available to share. 
 
As explained by Morris in his testimony given in this 
case, Ares is free software that, once installed on a computer, 
allows the exchange of files through the Internet.2  Upon 
initiating Ares, the user enters search terms to identify files 
of other peer-to-peer users online that meet the search 
criteria.  Ares then displays a list of files available from 
other computers, and the user may select specific files to 
download.  As the files are downloaded, they are placed into a 
shared folder generally designated on the user's computer 
directory as "My Shared Files."  This folder is accessible to 
other peer-to-peer users unless the settings are changed by the 
user to preclude access.  According to Morris, 
the whole basic concept of peer-to-peer, is you 
borrow or download files from other folks and you 
now possess those, but also share it with the 
rest of the community, otherwise you're not 
really much use to your other peers.  So you use 
peer-to-peer software to download files from 
other users and share files with those same 
common users. 
 
 
On April 25, 2012, in the course of using Ares to 
investigate distribution of child pornography on the Internet 
                     
 
2 See Ares Free, What is Ares? 
http://www.aresfree.net/what-is-ares (last visited March 20, 
2015). 
 
3 
by persons in the Harrisonburg area, Morris identified an IP 
address with 38 files believed to contain child pornography 
available to share on the Ares network.  Upon sending a request 
to the identified computer to share two of these files, Morris 
was permitted to download both files, which were confirmed by 
him to contain child pornography.  The IP address was 
subsequently traced to Kelley's home. 
 
On May 18, 2012, at approximately 6:15 a.m., members of 
the ICAC Task Force and the Harrisonburg Police Department 
executed a search warrant upon Kelley's home.  Investigator 
Greg Miller, accompanied by another investigator, both with the 
Harrisonburg Police Department, spoke to Kelley in his bedroom.  
Kelley acknowledged he was familiar with file-sharing software 
and Ares in particular.  Kelley told Miller he uses Ares "for 
music," explained "how it worked," and said the files he stored 
were "on a shared folder located on his desktop." 
 
When Miller informed Kelley that child pornography was 
found on his computer, Kelley said he was in the process of 
downloading child pornography onto his laptop when they arrived 
and initially claimed that "[j]ust now when you all knocked on 
the door was the first time I've downloaded anything in the 
folder," adding that they would find the videos in his shared 
folder.  Kelley directed Miller to his laptop computer, which 
 
4 
was found in his bedroom closet, in a backpack underneath some 
clothing. 
 
Kelley ultimately admitted he had used Ares on previous 
occasions to download child pornography.  When asked about the 
specific date on which Special Agent Morris accessed the two 
videos from Kelley's computer, Kelley responded, "You would 
know."  When Miller asked Kelley how long he had been "dealing 
child pornography," Kelley said "maybe four years."  Kelley 
repeatedly told Miller that he did not share the files but 
downloaded them and "just deleted [the files] out of the share 
folder." 
 
At trial, Kelley called Daniel Reefe to testify as an 
expert in computer forensics.  Reefe confirmed that Ares 
creates the "My Shared Files" folder as a default option upon 
installation of the program.  Therefore, when using Ares, files 
selected will automatically download into the shared folder 
unless the user chooses to place the files elsewhere to prevent 
sharing by other users. 
 
Kelley was convicted by the jury of two counts of 
distribution of child pornography and ten counts of possession 
of child pornography in violation of Code § 18.2-374.1:1.3  The 
                     
 
3 Investigator Christopher O'Neill, a computer forensics 
expert with the Harrisonburg Police Department, performed a 
preliminary examination on Kelley's laptop computer.  O'Neill 
 
5 
Court of Appeals, by a per curiam order, denied Kelley's 
petition for appeal. 
II.  ANALYSIS 
 
On appeal, Kelley argues that the evidence was 
insufficient "to prove distribution of child pornography based 
upon the presence and automatic actions of a peer-to-peer 
program on Kelley's computer." 
 
When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged on appeal, 
we review the evidence in the "light most favorable" to the 
Commonwealth, as the party prevailing at trial.  Commonwealth 
v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 514, 578 S.E.2d 781, 786 (2003).  This 
principle requires us to "discard the evidence of the accused 
in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true 
all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all 
fair inferences to be drawn therefrom."  Parks v. Commonwealth, 
221 Va. 492, 498, 270 S.E.2d 755, 759 (1980) (emphasis, 
internal quotation marks and citation omitted).  We will not 
                                                                 
found ten files containing child pornography in the shared 
folder on Kelley's laptop.  Special Agent Hugh Thatcher, Jr., a 
member of the Electronic Crimes Task Force of the United States 
Secret Service, performed a full forensic examination on 
Kelley's laptop computer and confirmed O'Neill's findings.  
These ten files formed the basis of indictments against Kelley 
on ten charges of possession of child pornography.  Kelley's 
convictions on these charges are not before us on appeal. 
 
 
6 
set aside the trial court's judgment unless it is "plainly 
wrong or without evidence to support it."  Code § 8.01-680; 
Viney v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 296, 299, 609 S.E.2d 26, 28 
(2005). 
 
Kelley was convicted of two counts of distribution of 
child pornography in violation of Code § 18.2-374.1:1(C)(i).  
This statute provides, in pertinent part, that any person who 
"reproduces by any means, including by computer, sells, gives 
away, distributes, [or] electronically transmits" child 
pornography shall be guilty of violating said statute. 
 
The evidence is undisputed that Kelley downloaded the Ares 
software onto his laptop and used Ares to search for and 
download the child pornography files that were accessed by 
Morris from Kelley's shared folder.  As Morris explained, the 
whole purpose of Ares is to facilitate sharing of files among 
the network of users. 
By downloading Ares, which is a peer-to-peer 
file-sharing software, it's inherent that . . . 
peer-to-peer users know that they're sharing 
files amongst their peers.  And by having those 
in a shared folder available for me to view and 
not changing the settings or having the settings 
so that [Kelley] would download or make available 
to share those [Kelley] essentially allowed me 
[access]. 
 
Thus, in downloading the child pornography files into his 
shared folder, Kelley made the files available for sharing with 
Morris. 
 
7 
Kelley could have prevented other Ares users, including 
Morris, from downloading those files from Kelley's computer, 
but he did not do so.  According to Morris, 
I searched like any other user would, identified 
that he had those [files] to share and downloaded 
those.  Some folks, which was not the case here, 
can actually stop and interrupt that download.  
They often times do that.  In this particular 
case I was able to download two complete files 
without interruption or without [Kelley] stopping 
that or prohibiting that share. 
 
 
We reject Kelley's contention that the evidence was 
insufficient to prove distribution because the files were 
shared "without any volition on the part of Kelley."  Kelley 
chose to download the Ares software onto his laptop computer by 
which he voluntarily participated in peer-to-peer file-sharing 
of child pornography.  Whether Kelley's shared folder 
containing the child pornography was created as a default 
option by the software or by Kelley himself, the child 
pornography files were, in fact, downloaded by Kelley into his 
shared folder and, thereby, made available to other users of 
Ares. 
Although Kelley could have changed the settings on his 
laptop to preclude sharing of his downloaded files or prevented 
Morris from downloading the files from Kelley's shared folder, 
he chose not to do so.  Kelley was familiar with the operation 
of the software, having used it before to download music, and 
 
8 
he even explained to Miller "how it worked."  Therefore, 
reasonable jurors could conclude that Kelley, by his own 
volition, shared the child pornography files with Morris.  
Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find 
that Kelley reproduced by any means, including by computer, 
sold, gave away, electronically transmitted or distributed 
child pornography in violation of Code § 18.2-374.1:1(C)(i). 
III.  CONCLUSION 
 
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of 
the Court of Appeals. 
Affirmed.