Patch v. State

The evidence sufficiently supported the defendant's convictions for three counts of computer or electronic pornography and child exploitation arising after he engaged in sexually explicit online communications with a person he believed to be a 14-year-old girl, but was actually a detective.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Phillip Patch appeals his convictions for three counts of computer or electronic pornography and child exploitation, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by admitting identification testimony of an investigating officer based solely on his observations of photographs and webcam videos that were unavailable to the jury. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s guilty verdict,1 the record shows that, in 2010, Stephen Land—who was, at that time, a corporal with the Gwinnett County Police Department’s Special Victims Unit—created an online profile of a young girl for use in his investigations of internet crimes against children. Specifically, relevant to this case, Land created a Yahoo account with the username roxiechick14, which included a cartoon avatar of a young female to suggest that the user was a 14-year-old girl. Land also added images to the account of a 19 or 20-year-old female employee of the police department, who looked much younger than her age, and the profile indicated that her name was Rhonda. Next, Land used the account to log into an internet chat room designated for users located in Georgia, and he waited for other users to initiate a one-on-one chat with him. In conducting his investigation, Land used software that recorded everything occurring on his screen while he was using the roxiechick14 account.

Patch v. State

The evidence sufficiently supported the defendant's convictions for three counts of computer or electronic pornography and child exploitation arising after he engaged in sexually explicit online communications with a person he believed to be a 14-year-old girl, but was actually a detective.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report