Howell v. State, 49A04-0903-CR-172
4th Dist., 12-09-09, Ind.App.
Attorney: Robert D. King, Jr.
Holding: Evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for obstruction of justice even though the email messages that constituted “false records” for the basis of the charge did not contain false or inaccurate information. I.C. 35-44-3-4(a)(4) defines obstruction of justice as “mak[ing], present[ing], or us[ing] a false record, document, or thing with the intent that the record, document, or thing, material to the point in question, appear in evidence in an official proceeding or investigation to mislead a public servant.”
Here, detective posed as a female minor in a Yahoo! chat room using the name “indydiamondgirl08.” Defendant, using the screen name “john_doe8238” contacted detective’s undercover account and was eventually charged with child solicitation. A few days after Defendant was released on bond, detective received more emails at indydiamondgirl08 from johndoe_8238 from an account registered to a woman in Great Falls, Montana. Defendant had given the woman’s daughter, C.C., his screen name and password, asked her to send messages to indydiamondgirl08 and to change his password. C.C. also said she logged on as john_doe8238 only when Defendant specified. Defendant explained to C. C. that if she did this, it would help his pending criminal case by showing that someone else was using his screen name.
Although the emails contained no false information in that they were mere inquiries into indydiamondgirl08’s well being or requests to engage in further conversation, Court found the emails false because C.C., not Defendant, sent the messages. This made the emails “false records.”
Court also rejected Defendant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient because: 1) the most recent emails were not introduced as evidence at Defendant’s child solicitation trial and 2) emails were sent not to mislead detective, but to create a defense to the child solicitation charge by showing someone else could have sent the messages. I.C. 35-44-3-4(a)(4) says obstruction of justice also occurs when a false record appears in an investigation. Because detective was required to investigate the emails sent after Defendant was arrested for child solicitation, the fact that the emails were not introduced as evidence at the child solicitation trial was inconsequential. Defendant’s argument regarding insufficient intent to mislead was an impermissible request to reweigh the evidence. Held, judgment affirmed.
