Court Opinion

ID: 9958232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 16:03:25.157143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:06.717214
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                     Apr 08 2024, 8:45 am

                                                                         CLERK
                                                                     Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                        Court of Appeals
                                                                          and Tax Court

                                             IN THE

            Court of Appeals of Indiana
                                         Edward A. Rose,
                                         Appellant-Defendant

                                                     v.

                                          State of Indiana,
                                           Appellee-Plaintiff

                                              April 8, 2024
                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
                                           23A-CR-2139
                               Appeal from the Noble Circuit Court
                            The Honorable Michael J. Kramer, Judge
                                       Trial Court Cause Nos.
                                         57C01-1708-F5-50
                                         57C01-2206-F5-40

                                  Opinion by Judge Vaidik
                             Judges May and Kenworthy concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2139 | April 8, 2024                  Page 1 of 7
      Vaidik, Judge.

      Case Summary
[1]   A sex or violent offender must register, among other things, their username for

      any “social networking web site.” A website is a “social networking web site”

      if, among other things, it “provides a member with the opportunity to

      communicate with another person.” We hold today that this element does not

      require the website to have a built-in messaging or chat function so long as it

      provides some way for a member to contact another person.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   Edward A. Rose must register as a sex offender for life due to a 1997 child-

      molesting conviction. In 2018, Rose pled guilty to Level 5 felony failure to

      register as a sex or violent offender. The trial court sentenced him to five years,

      with three years to serve in prison and two years suspended to probation.

[3]   Rose was released to probation in August 2021. The next month, the probation

      department filed a petition alleging that Rose violated several conditions of his

      probation. While the petition was still pending, the State charged Rose with

      four counts of Level 5 felony failure to register as a sex or violent offender and

      one count of Level 6 felony failure of a sex or violent offender to possess

      identification. On appeal, Rose challenges only three of these counts—Counts

      2, 3, and 4. Specifically, these counts allege that Rose failed to register his

      online social-media accounts for three dating websites: Christianfilipina.com

      (Count 2), Jollyromance.com (Count 3), and Orchidromance.com (Count 4).
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2139 | April 8, 2024            Page 2 of 7
      The probation department then filed a second petition alleging that Rose

      violated his probation by committing the new offenses.

[4]   A bench trial was held on the new charges and the probation violations. Rose’s

      probation officer testified that Rose admitted to her that he had accessed “chat

      rooms and dating websites” but had not registered his accounts with the Noble

      County Sheriff’s Department. Tr. p. 90. The probation officer explained that

      she searched Rose’s cell phone and took photos of various screens. The photos

      include three screenshots of Rose’s profile on Jollyromance.com, two

      screenshots of his profile on Orchidromance.com, and two screenshots of text

      messages from “Joann” at Christianfilipina.com. Ex. 3 at 20-22, 27-28, 33-34.

      One of the text messages from “Joann” provides, in part:

              Hi Edward, this is Joann from Christian Filipina. It was great
              talking to you. As I promised, here’s the reminder of the 4 items
              to write down. 1st-8:15 AM Eastern Time, September 5, 2021,
              you will be with Nestle, Christian Filipina’s phone number 1-
              800-578-1469 . . . .

      Ex. 3 at 33. The State also introduced into evidence a video of a police officer’s

      interview of Rose. During the interview, Rose admitted creating accounts on

      the “dating websites” and looking at them but claimed he stopped because

      “they want credit cards or . . . you have to pay a bunch of money to chat to

      somebody.” Ex. 5 (second video) at 3:15, 6:18, 14:47 (emphasis added).

[5]   The trial court found Rose guilty on the five new counts and that he violated

      several conditions of his probation. The court sentenced Rose to four years for

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2139 | April 8, 2024           Page 3 of 7
      each Level 4 felony and two years for the Level 6 felony, to be served

      concurrently. On the probation violations, the court ordered Rose to serve his

      previously suspended sentence of two years (minus credit time). The court

      ordered the two sentences to be served consecutively.

[6]   Rose now appeals.

      Discussion and Decision
[7]   Rose contends the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for Counts

      2, 3, and 4. When reviewing sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims, we neither

      reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Willis v. State, 27

      N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015). We will only consider the evidence supporting

      the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the

      evidence. Id. A conviction will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of

      probative value to support each element of the offense such that a reasonable

      trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Id.

[8]   To convict Rose of failure to register as a sex or violent offender, the State had

      to prove that he failed to register as required by Indiana Code chapter 11-8-8.

      See Ind. Code § 11-8-8-17. Rose had to register, among other things, “Any

      electronic mail address, instant messaging username, electronic chat room

      username, or social networking web site username that the sex or violent

      offender uses or intends to use.” I.C. § 11-8-8-8(a)(7) (emphasis added). A

      “social networking web site username” means “an identifier or profile that

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2139 | April 8, 2024          Page 4 of 7
      allows a person to create, use, or modify a social networking web site, as

      defined in IC 35-31.5-2-307.” I.C. § 11-8-8-1.8. A “social networking web site,”

      in turn, means

              an Internet web site, an application, a computer program, or
              software that:

                       (1) facilitates the social introduction between two (2) or
                       more persons;

                       (2) requires a person to register or create an account, a
                       username, or a password to become a member of the web
                       site and to communicate with other members;

                       (3) allows a member to create a web page or a personal
                       profile; and

                       (4) provides a member with the opportunity to
                       communicate with another person.

              The term does not include an electronic mail program or message
              board program.

      I.C. § 35-31.5-2-307 (emphasis added).

[9]   Rose concedes the evidence sufficiently proves that the three dating websites

      satisfy subsections (1)-(3) of Section 35-31.5-2-307. Appellant’s Br. p. 12. He

      argues, however, that the evidence is insufficient to prove subsection (4)

      because the State presented no evidence “that the three web sites . . . provide

      members with the opportunity to communicate with another person.” Id. at 12-

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2139 | April 8, 2024             Page 5 of 7
       13 (footnote omitted). According to Rose, the State had to establish that the

       websites themselves had a “messaging or chat function.” Id. at 13.

[10]   Subsection (4) states that the website must provide “a member with the

       opportunity to communicate with another person.” While evidence that the

       website has a built-in messaging or chat function would no doubt satisfy

       subsection (4),1 that is not the only way to do so. So long as the website

       provides some way for a member to contact another person (such as by a phone

       number or email address), the website has furnished the member with an

       “opportunity to communicate.” As the State highlights, there would be no point

       to a dating website if it didn’t provide members with some way to communicate

       with each other.

[11]   Here, Rose stated during his videotaped interview that the dating websites gave

       him an opportunity to “chat to somebody”; he just claimed he didn’t want to

       pay for it. In other words, Rose admitted that the websites had some sort of

       messaging or chat function. But even without this evidence, Exhibit 3 shows

       that Joann from Christianfilipina.com texted Rose, thanked him for “talking”

       to her, and gave him a phone number and meeting date and time for Nestle.

       Thus, Christianfilipina.com provided Rose with an “opportunity to

       communicate” with another person. Based on this evidence and Rose’s

       1
        Count 1 alleges that Rose failed to register his Facebook account. On appeal, Rose says he is not
       challenging that conviction because it is well established that Facebook has a messaging feature. See
       Appellant’s Br. p. 13 n.2.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2139 | April 8, 2024                                  Page 6 of 7
       admissions that the websites were dating websites and allowed him to “chat to

       somebody” if he paid the fee, it was reasonable for the trial court to infer that

       the other dating websites Rose joined provided a similar “opportunity to

       communicate.” Because the State proved that the dating websites Rose joined

       were “social networking web sites,” the evidence is sufficient to support Counts

       2, 3, and 4.2

[12]   Affirmed.

       May, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.

       ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
       Victoria Bailey Casanova
       Casanova Legal Services, LLC
       Indianapolis, Indiana

       ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
       Theodore E. Rokita
       Attorney General
       Samuel J. Dayton
       Deputy Attorney General
       Indianapolis, Indiana

       2
         Rose also argues that “[w]ithout the convictions on Counts [2], [3], and [4], the trial court may have
       exercised its discretion differently and imposed a lesser aggregate sentence for Counts [1] and [5].”
       Appellant’s Br. p. 14. Accordingly, he asks us to remand the case to the trial court “to determine if a 4-year
       aggregate sentence is still appropriate without the convictions on Counts [2], [3], and [4].” Id. Because we
       find that the evidence is sufficient to support Counts 2, 3, and 4, we need not address this argument.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2139 | April 8, 2024                                    Page 7 of 7