ILNews

COA tackles 2 issues of first impression

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals addressed two new issues in a child solicitation and prostitution case regarding authenticating emails and text messages and whether the defendant’s actions actually constituted a crime.

Matthew Pavlovich appealed his convictions of Class D felony child solicitation and Class A misdemeanor patronizing a prostitute. The charges stem from his interactions with S.Y. and her now-husband and “pimp,” Bradford Pugh. Pavlovich communicated with S.Y. through the email “golfnutmi” and a cell phone with the last four digits 2662.

When he met with S.Y. to have sex with her, S.Y. mentioned she had a 9-year-old sister, P.Y. Pavlovich suggested S.Y. and P.Y. perform sex acts on each other. S.Y. and Pugh went to police with the texts and emails Pavlovich sent regarding P.Y. He was eventually charged and convicted based on those communications.

His appeal, Matthew Pavlovich v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1308-CR-715, brings up two issues of first impression. The first is the admissibility of text or email messages where there is a complete lack of technological or documentary evidence linking a party to a particular cell number or email address. The phone Pavlovich used is registered under a different name to an address in the middle of the highway. There is also no evidence connecting Pavlovich to the email address except for when he gave it to S.Y.

The appellate court ruled the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to authenticate the texts and emails as being authorized by Pavlovich, so they were properly introduced into evidence and authenticated as being written by him. S.Y. testified that Pavlovich was the man who hired her and had sex with her on the date, she recognized his voice and that they communicated through that number and email.

Pavlovich was entitled to – and did – argue that there was insufficient evidence that he wrote the messages, but the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting them into evidence.

The case also presents for the first time the question of whether it is a crime under Ind. Code 35-42-4-6(b), the statute governing child solicitation, for a person to direct communications to an intermediary who the person believes is passing the communications on to the child or is acting on behalf of the child.

“Certainly communicating through an intermediary, as was done here, satisfies the ‘any other means’ method of child solicitation,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote in the majority opinion.

The majority affirmed his convictions.

Judge Michael Barnes dissented on this issue, disagreeing that Pavlovich completed the act of child solicitation under the circumstances of this case. He pointed out that he never directly communicated with P.Y., instead, urged S.Y. to urge P.Y. to engage in a sex act with her, but S.Y. never did so. As such, no illicit communications ever reached a child under 14 years old or a person pretending to be a child, so the child solicitation conviction must be reversed.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  2. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  3. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  4. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

  5. Unlike the federal judge who refused to protect me, the Virginia State Bar gave me a hearing. After the hearing, the Virginia State Bar refused to discipline me. VSB said that attacking me with the court ADA coordinator had, " all the grace and charm of a drive-by shooting." One does wonder why the VSB was able to have a hearing and come to that conclusion, but the federal judge in Indiana slammed the door of the courthouse in my face.

ADVERTISEMENT