Duren v. State
544 S.W.3d 555
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Defendant Joseph Duren (age 23) was convicted by a jury of internet stalking of a child under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-306 and sentenced to 240 months. He appealed on sufficiency grounds.
- In mid-2015, Duren exchanged sexual messages on Snapsext with a user (B.T.) who identified herself as 26; no in-person meeting was arranged then.
- In February 2016, Faulkner County officer Chad Meli, posing as B.T., texted Duren after extracting Snapsext data; Duren admitted he believed he was texting a 14-year-old.
- During the February exchange, Duren and "B.T." discussed sex, exchanged photographs (Officer Meli testified the photos were transmitted over the internet), agreed to meet that night at a grocery store, and Duren was arrested at the meeting site with condoms, lubricant, alcohol, a knife, and his phone.
- Trial testimony established photos were sent via data/Internet while the sexual conversation and meeting logistics were in SMS; defendant argued the statute requires use of the Internet for the arrangement itself.
- The trial court denied directed-verdict motions; the appellate court reviewed statutory interpretation and sufficiency of evidence de novo and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence showed Duren used a computer/Internet service to arrange a meeting to engage in sex with one he believed to be a minor | State: Photos exchanged via data/Internet and other communications in furtherance of arranging the meeting satisfy the statute | Duren: 2015 Snapsext chats were with an adult; 2016 communications that arranged the meeting were SMS over phone lines, not Internet, so statute not met | Held: Substantial evidence that at least the photographs were transmitted over the Internet and were received in furtherance of arranging the meeting; conviction affirmed |
| Whether the Snapsext (2015) chats supported conviction | State: Snapsext chats were over the Internet and sexual in nature | Duren: He believed he was chatting with a 26‑year‑old so Snapsext chats cannot support a charge of enticing a child | Held: 2015 chats did not support conviction because Duren believed correspondent was an adult |
| Whether photos exchanged need to be sexually explicit to satisfy § 5‑27‑306(a)(4) | State: § 5‑27‑306(a)(4) requires use of Internet to receive identifying info/picture in furtherance of arranging meeting for sexual purpose; no explicitness requirement | Duren: Photos were nonexplicit and the sexual planning occurred in SMS, so photos alone insufficient | Held: Photos sent over the Internet in furtherance of arranging the meeting satisfied subsection (a)(4) when considered with the surrounding communications |
| Whether appellate court should reweigh conflicting technical testimony about transmission method | State: Officer Meli’s expert testimony supports Internet transmission for photos | Duren: Trial showed texts were sent via voice/SMS, so appellate factual re‑weighing required | Held: Appellate court defers to jury on credibility; it will not reweigh evidence and accepts officer’s testimony that photos passed over the Internet |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelley v. State, 103 Ark. App. 110, 286 S.W.3d 746 (review standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Holcomb v. State, 2014 Ark. 141, 432 S.W.3d 600 (statutory interpretation and rules for penal statutes)
- Harris v. State, 331 Ark. 353, 961 S.W.2d 737 (deference to jury credibility determinations)