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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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