Kelley v. Commonwealth ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • 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).
    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).
    2
    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
    3
    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
    4
    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.
    5
    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.
    6
    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
    7
    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.
    8
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 140837

Filed Date: 4/16/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016