FILED
Jul 24 2018, 9:51 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana Lee M. Stoy, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Anthony A. Keith, July 24, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
33A01-1712-CR-2981
v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
33C02-1603-F4-2
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 1 of 17
[1] Anthony A. Keith appeals his conviction for possession of child pornography
involving Snapchat1 images as a level 6 felony. Keith raises one issue which we
revise and restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] H.T. was born on May 14, 2001. She and her family camped at Yogi Bear
Jellystone Park in Knightstown, Indiana, where her father worked on the
equipment, “every weekend when [she] had school, and then . . . all summer.”
Transcript Volume 2 at 50. While camping, H.T. met Keith, who was
employed by the campground, and knew him for three to four years before they
“bec[a]me friends.” Id. H.T. would ride along with him on the campground’s
“chuck wagon” to assist while Keith worked on equipment or campers that
required maintenance. Id.
[3] At some point, Keith asked H.T. for her cellular phone number, and the two
exchanged numbers. Keith and H.T. would text each other on a daily basis.
They also communicated via Snapchat, which H.T. had requested Keith to join
on April 5, 2015.
[4] On October 24, 2015, H.T participated in the campground’s haunted trail. At
the end of the night, Keith, who was wearing a bear costume, approached H.T.
1
Snapchat is a cellular phone application used to “message people . . . and send pictures.” Transcript
Volume 2 at 53.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 2 of 17
and asked her to help turn off the generators. When the two were alone, he
asked H.T. to “play with his [penis]” and if he could fondle her. Transcript
Volume 2 at 61. He also took pictures of H.T.’s uncovered vagina with his
phone.
[5] On October 25, 2015, Keith and H.T. communicated via text message as
follows:
Keith: Good Morning sweetie. Thanks for your help last night
H.T.: Your [sic] welcome
H.T.: Are you still out here at the campground
Keith: Yep. I’ll come see you when Teresa leaves
H.T.: Ok tell me when she leaves so I know
*****
H.T.: Are you going to come see me before I leave
H.T.: Will you come see me before I leave please
Keith: I’m heading up now. She is or has just left
State’s Exhibit 1 at 3.
[6] At some point, Keith and H.T. again exchanged text messages as follows:
Keith: I’m trying
Keith: Try snapchatting me
H.T.: Ok
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 3 of 17
H.T.: What do you want me to snapchat you
Keith: I don’t care, I don’t even have you as a friend
Keith: I ain’t seeing or receiving anything WTF
H.T.: What is your username
Keith: Oh wait. Did you just send “who is this”
H.T.: Yes
Keith: D--- it. Is there another app that only you and me can
chat. I’m afraid Teresa could be monitoring snap chat. My
Friends are people I don’t even know.
H.T.: Not that I know of,[]but you can unfriend the people you
you don’t want on there.
Id. at 6.
[7] On November 4, 2015, Keith and H.T. shared the following exchange by text
message:
H.T.: What’s up
Keith: Jake[2]
H.T.: Yes
H.T.: Yes I want Jake
Keith: Really
2
At trial, H.T. testified that “Jake” was the name of Keith’s penis, that at some point he told her he referred
to his penis as Jake, and that, whenever he would text her about Jake, he was texting her about his penis.
Transcript Volume 2 at 66-67.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 4 of 17
H.T.: Yeah really
Keith: I don’t believe ya
H.T.: Why
Keith: You haven’t seen him
H.T.: Well I have played with him and I want to see him
Keith: We’ll see
H.T.: I want to see him
H.T.: If that’s alright
Keith: Absolutely
Id. at 7-8.
[8] At some other point, Keith and H.T. again text messaged about “Jake,” as
follows:
Keith: Hey sweetie
H.T.: What’s up
Keith: Jake
H.T.: Yes
H.T.: I want Jake
Keith: You can’t handle Jake
H.T.: Yes I can
Keith: Jake will hurt you
H.T.: No he won’t
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 5 of 17
H.T.: I want to see Jake
Keith: What do you call yours?[3]
Id. at 9.
[9] On December 10, 2015, H.T. sent a message which stated, “. . . nothing much
just sitting in my room playing on my phone what you up to,” and Keith
responded, “Playing with your what. Oh nevermind. I thought you said
something else. I was gonna say. Take a video. Lol.” Id. at 10. H.T. then
replied, “If I was doing that how was I going to send you the video.” Id.
[10] On December 15, 2015, Keith and H.T. communicated via text message as
follows:
H.T.: What’s up
Keith: I’m s[i]tting here look [sic] at your photo
H.T.: Which one
Keith: Both
H.T.: Do you like them that much
Id. at 11.
3
At trial, H.T. was asked what Keith meant when he asked, “[w]hat do you call yours,” she responded she
thought he was talking about her vagina, and she testified that she ended up having the name “Bonnie” for
her vagina. Transcript Volume 2 at 95-96.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 6 of 17
[11] On December 28, 2015, Keith sent H.T. a message which stated that he was
“[t]rying to get a deleted pix [sic] of Bonnie,” H.T. sent Keith a message which
stated, “[d]o you need me to send you one,” and Keith responded, “I would
like that. Is it possible to do a video? I’ve never done that,” and indicated after
H.T. messaged affirmatively that he “might try that.” Id. at 17.
[12] At some point, Keith sent H.T. a text message which stated, “[f]or some reason
the photos you sent last night got on my computer through ICloud. . [.] She
questioned the h--- out of me about who sent them. I told her it was 1 of my
buddies and it was a female puller. I have since turned off iCloud on my
phone.” Id. at 28. After more messaging, he sent H.T. a message which stated,
“[k]inda freaked me out. I had to be fast on my feet with an answer that I knew
she would accept. You can still send all the photos you want. Nobody will see
them now.” Id.
[13] On March 10, 2016, the State charged Keith with sexual misconduct with a
minor as a level 4 felony, vicarious sexual gratification as a level 5 felony, child
solicitation as a level 5 felony, and possession of child pornography, a level 6
felony. On May 12, 2017, the State amended the first two counts to attempted
sexual misconduct with a minor as a level 4 felony and sexual misconduct with
a minor as a level 5 felony.
[14] At trial, H.T. testified that, at the time she and Keith “were becoming friends . .
. and texting and Snapchatting each other,” Keith knew her age because they
“shared the same birthday,” meaning the same month and date. Transcript
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 7 of 17
Volume 2 at 54. She testified she did not know his birth year but that she knew
he was approximately “[f]orty-six.” Id. at 55. She stated that at some point in
the relationship, Keith started asking her to send him photographs of herself
and that “[h]e wanted pictures of . . . my [breasts] and vagina.” Id. When
asked how he asked for those photographs, she replied that he “would . . . ask
me, ‘Will you send me, like, pictures of your [breasts] and vagina,’” and that he
did so in person at the campground. Id. She indicated that she sent him
multiple unclothed pictures of her breasts and vagina through Snapchat “more
than ten times.” Id. at 56.
[15] H.T. testified that, on October 29, 2015, she and Keith discussed “what his
Snapchat username [was],” that she knew what his screen name was “[b]ecause
he had – it had . . . shown up on my thing where I searched it,” and that she
thought she and Keith were connected on Snapchat. Id. at 91. She also
testified that she went to the campground after the November 4, 2015 text
messages and accompanied Keith alone to a barn, Keith made advances
towards her, he “kept on asking me if I would play with his [penis],” and that
he took pictures when she had her pants pulled down of her uncovered vagina.
Id. at 71. When asked what she meant by “If [I] was doing that” in her
December 10, 2015 message, H.T. stated that she meant playing with herself, or
playing with her breasts or vagina. Id. at 96. With respect to Keith’s December
15, 2015 message that he was sitting and looking at her photos, H.T. testified
that she had sent him photos of her uncovered breasts and vagina. She
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 8 of 17
answered affirmatively when asked if, “when he refers to both, did you send
separate photos.” Id. at 98.
[16] H.T. was shown the twelfth page of State’s Exhibit 1, which was a photograph
of an undated text message conversation between herself and Keith, and
answered, when asked what the text message conversation referred to, “[l]ike,
his wife finding out.” Id. at 98. In response to “[d]id he have some reason why
he thought his wife found something out,” she stated, “[b]ecause I think his
phone connected to his laptop.” Id.
[17] H.T. was shown the thirteenth page of State’s Exhibit 1, which was a
photograph of an undated text message conversation between herself and Keith,
was asked to read it, and stated:
“I’m sorry, I didn’t mean it.” “I deleted everything from the –
from – I deleted everything from pics to text and rebooted my
phone. It’ll probably – it probably won’t – wouldn’t be a bad
idea for you to do the same. I didn’t realize that when I deleted
pics I also had to go into the file of deleted stuff and delete them
again.” “Okay. Will do.” “I love you, but I don’t want to get
into trouble, and when we will – then we will never be able to see
each other again.”
Id. at 99. She then testified that she meant “[l]ike, him – like, me sending, like,
pictures to him,” when she had texted “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean that.” Id. She
answered affirmatively when she was asked, “[s]o you sent some pictures, and –
and they possibly got discovered.” Id. After the prosecutor stated, “he talks
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 9 of 17
about deleting stuff . . . asking you to delete stuff,” and asked H.T. if she deleted
photographs, and she responded affirmatively. Id. at 100.
[18] H.T. was shown the fourteenth page of State’s Exhibit 1, which was a
photograph of an undated text message conversation between herself and Keith,
was asked to read it, and stated:
“I might be coming to New Castle.” “Oh, really? Why?”
“Walmart.” “Why are you – why here in New Castle?”
“Looking for a red sweatshirt.” “Okay.” “How’s Bonnie?”
“She is doing good, but she could be better.” “Oh, she will. I
promise.” “Okay. How’s Jake?” “Had a great night. Doing
good but could do – could be better, also.” “He’ll get better once
camping gets here. I promise.”
Id. When asked about what Keith was referring when he inquired, “How’s
Bonnie,” H.T. stated, “[m]y vagina.” Id. at 101.
[19] When shown the fifteenth page of State’s Exhibit 1, or a photograph of a text
message displaying a picture of H.T.’s face and a picture of Keith’s face, H.T.
indicated that she was in her room when she took her picture. When shown the
photographs of the December 28, 2015 text message conversation between
herself and Keith, H.T. testified that, when Keith referred to deleted pictures of
Bonnie, he was referring to “[t]he pictures that he had deleted off of his phone”
and that when he asked in the message if it was possible “to do a video,” she
believed it meant “one like on Snapchat. Like, a short one.” Id. at 103-104.
When shown the photographs of the January 5, 2016 text message conversation
between herself and Keith, H.T. testified that she was referring to her breasts
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 10 of 17
when she messaged “before long, you will get to see them in person.” Id. at
108.
[20] After H.T. was shown photographs of the conversation in which Keith had
messaged her that “the photos you sent last night got on my computer” and
read the conversation, she testified that she had sent more photos of her breasts
and vagina. Id. at 111. She also testified that she continued to send pictures of
herself throughout October, November, December, 2015 and January, 2016
because she believed she was in a relationship with Keith, and that she was
fourteen at the time. She answered affirmatively when asked if Keith ever sent
her photographs of his penis, that she knew it was his “[b]ecause you could see .
. . his face in the picture,” and that he would send the photographs whenever
she sent him one. Id. at 56-57. With respect to his photographs, she testified
that she received them through Snapchat, she saved the photographs “[a]
couple of time[s], but . . . deleted them,” Keith would say that she needed to
delete them before his wife found out, and that he would talk about deleting
items “[a]t least once a week, or every time we – he sent a picture.” Id. at 57.
[21] On direct examination, the following exchange occurred concerning Snapchat:
[Prosecutor]: Okay. And the messages and the pictures that you
send, are those saved anywhere in the app, that you –
[H.T.]: No.
[Prosecutor]: – know of? Is that one of the features of Snapchat?
[H.T.]: Yeah.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 11 of 17
Id. at 54. When asked to explain her basic understanding of how Snapchat
works, she stated that it was “[l]ike sending pictures of . . . what you’re around
and . . . where you’re at” and that “they deleted on their own.” Transcript
Volume 2 at 121, 122. She responded, “ten seconds,” when asked if she knew
what the normal time limit for a Snapchat is, and answered affirmatively when
then questioned, “if you don’t save a picture within that ten seconds, it deletes”
and “as far as you know there’s no way to recover that.” Id. at 138-139. She
testified that she saved photos “off of Snapchat” which were “saved to [her]
hard drive of [her] iPhone,” and answered affirmatively when asked if it was
possible to save those images onto a wireless device or computer and if she had
ever saved images with Keith to her phone. Id. at 129.
[22] On redirect examination, the following exchange occurred between the court,
the prosecutor, and Keith’s counsel:
[Prosecutor]: When you sent pictures of your breast or vagina to
[Keith], did you ever get a notice that he saved the picture?
[Keith’s Counsel]: I would object.
*****
[Keith’s Counsel]: I think it calls for [] hearsay – it’s not her
statement. I think it calls for a – something that’s an out of court
statement from the app itself. So I’m going to object.
THE COURT: Out of court statement from?
[Keith’s Counsel]: From the – from the Snapchat app itself.
THE COURT: Response, [Prosecutor]?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 12 of 17
[Prosecutor]: Your Honor, I think that it’s an observation that
she can testify that she made that the app gave her a notification
that a photo was saved.
[Keith’s Counsel]: I’ll –
THE COURT: Well, I . . . guess it’s not being offered that the
photo was saved, it’s being offered that she received a
notification. So I’ll deny – overrule your objection. You can
answer the question, ma’am.
[H.T.]: Yes.
[Prosecutor]: Yes you got notifications?
[H.T.]: Yes, I did.
Id. at 140. During recross-examination, H.T. testified that, in her experience
with Snapchat, the images saved to the phone.
[23] Detective Sergeant Anthony Wayne Darling of the Henry County Sheriff’s
Department testified that he interviewed Keith on March 14, 2016, that he had
very little experience with Snapchat gained through training and in consulting
with the Cyber Crimes Unit of the Indiana State Police Lab, and that it was his
“understanding that with Snapchat that the way . . . a photo is saved is if
someone – for instance, whether who receives it would take a screenshot of
that.” Id. at 185. The court admitted and played for the jury an audio
recording of the interview, in which Keith admitted that H.T. had sent him
pictures of her breasts and vagina.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 13 of 17
[24] At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Keith guilty of sexual misconduct with
a minor as a level 5 felony, child solicitation as a level 5 felony, and possession
of child pornography, a level 6 felony.
Discussion
[25] The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Keith’s conviction for
possession of child pornography as a level 6 felony. When reviewing claims of
insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the
credibility of witnesses. Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995), reh’g
denied. We look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that
support the verdict. Id. The conviction will be affirmed if there exists evidence
of probative value from which a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[26] At the time of the offense, Ind. Code § 35-42-4-4(c) provided in relevant part
that “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally possesses . . . a photograph . . .
that depicts or describes sexual conduct by a child who the person knows is less
than eighteen (18) years of age or who appears to be less than eighteen (18)
years of age, and that lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
commits possession of child pornography, a Level 6 felony.”4 For purposes of
Indiana criminal law, a party engages in knowing conduct “if, when he engages
4
Subsequently amended by Pub. L. No. 13-2016, § 15 (eff. July 1, 2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 14 of 17
in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” Ind. Code
§ 35-41-2-2(b). A party engages in intentional conduct “if, when he engages in
the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(a).
[27] Possession can be either actual or constructive. Eckrich v. State, 73 N.E.3d 744,
746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (citing Sargent v. State, 27 N.E.3d 729, 732-733 (Ind.
2015) (“Although arising in a different context our jurisprudence on the issue of
‘possession’ is rather straightforward: it can be either actual or constructive.”)),
trans. denied. Constructive possession occurs when a “person has (1) the
capability to maintain dominion and control over the item; and (2) the intent to
maintain dominion and control over it.” Id. (quoting Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d
171, 174 (Ind. 2011)). The capability requirement is met “when the State shows
that the defendant is able to reduce the [contraband] to the defendant’s personal
possession.” Perry v. State, 956 N.E.2d 41, 61 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citing
Goliday v. State, 708 N.E.2d 4, 6 (Ind. 1999)), reh’g denied.
[28] Keith argues that merely receiving an image sent by somebody else that is
automatically deleted by the application is not possession under Indiana law
and that he did not “intentionally point a web browser to certain websites to
view them.” Appellant’s Brief at 7, 11. He asserts that the “issue of whether
receiving child pornography through Snapchat is knowing or intentional
‘possession’ is an issue of first impression in Indiana” and that the child
pornography statute in effect at the time of the offense prohibited only
possession, and not viewing, of child pornography. Id. at 9. He also argues
that, while he could save pornographic images by taking a screenshot of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 15 of 17
Snapchat, police did not find any image on his computer or cellular phone and
that the court ruled that H.T.’s testimony, i.e., she believed Keith had saved the
images she sent him based on her receipt of a notice from Snapchat, was not
offered as proof that the image was saved.
[29] The State argues that Keith asked H.T. to send him images of her uncovered
breasts and vagina through Snapchat, points to H.T.’s receipt of notification
from Snapchat, and maintains that, although Snapchat automatically deleted
the images, Keith could still control what happened to the images in the brief
interim before they were deleted by saving them to his phone and reducing
them to his personal possession.
[30] The record reveals that Keith took pictures of H.T.’s uncovered vagina with his
phone, that he made numerous references to H.T., a person he knew was under
the age of eighteen, and to obtaining photographs of her depicting sexual
conduct, including those on December 28, 2015, and that he was trying to
obtain a deleted picture of her vagina and was wondering if it was “possible to
do a video.” State’s Exhibit 1 at 17. We note H.T.’s testimony that he started
asking her to send him photographs of herself, that “[h]e wanted pictures of . . .
my [breasts] and vagina,” and that, when she had sent pictures of her breasts or
vagina to Keith, she received a notification from Snapchat at least once that a
photo had been saved. Transcript Volume 2 at 55. We also note Keith’s
message that “[f]or some reason the photos you sent last night got on my
computer through ICloud.” State’s Exhibit 1 at 28.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 16 of 17
[31] We further observe that Keith requested via text message that H.T. “try
snapchatting [him]” and later reassured her that she could “still send all the
photos [she] want[ed]” and “[n]obody will see them now,” statements which
ultimately resulted in H.T. sending multiple unclothed pictures through
Snapchat over multiple occurrences. Id. at 6, 28. The trial testimony regarding
Snapchat reveals that images sent through the Snapchat application may be
saved onto a wireless device or computer and that there is a time limit of
around ten seconds in which to save a picture. Based upon the record, the State
presented evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could find
Keith guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of child pornography as a
level 6 felony.5
Conclusion
[32] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Keith’s conviction for possession of child
pornography as a level 6 felony.
[33] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Crone, J., concur.
5
To the extent that Keith argues that the statute’s 2017 amendment reflects that “prior to July 1, 2017 . . .
‘possession’ did not include merely accessing images with an intent to view them,” we affirm on the basis of
whether Keith “knowingly or intentionally possess[ed]” the images and not based on the 2017 amendment
language.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1712-CR-2981 | July 24, 2018 Page 17 of 17