State v. Green, 164 So. 3d 331

Defendant Justin Green was convicted of computer-aided solicitation of a minor (La. R.S. 14:81.3) and, separately, indecent behavior with juveniles, with a 10-year hard labor sentence without parole or suspension.
The victim, a 12-year-old girl, DM, was contacted via Facebook by an adult male; her mother reported this to police.
Det. Bryan Montgomery, part of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, located Green on DM’s Facebook friends list and reviewed DM’s phone messages and a photo of DM with Green.
A chat and a request for meeting were conducted through DM’s and Green’s phones, including a message asking for sexual activity and a photo sent to Green’s phone; Green arranged a meeting and a condom was discussed.
Green was arrested at a post office after the chat indicated an imminent meeting; police seized DM’s phone and Green’s phone, and obtained a search warrant for both phones.
Green moved to suppress evidence obtained from his phone prior to obtaining a search warrant; suppression was denied; trial proceeded as a bench trial and he was found guilty of 14:81.3 and not guilty of indecent behavior with juveniles; the conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for 14:81.3	Green argues no evidence ties him to texting DM.	Conflicting testimony and lack of direct transmission evidence undermine guilt.	Sufficient evidence shows Green transmitted messages and intended sexual conduct.
Pre-warrant search of cell phone	Search of Green’s cell phone identifying serial number without warrant was illegal.	Serial-number search was not a real search; warrantless search of contents not required.	Removal of the back to obtain serial number was not a search; post-warrant contents search valid.
Admissibility of Facebook profile and text messages (hearsay)	Facebook profile and DM’s text transcripts are admissible as non-hearsay to prove communications occurred.	Facebook records and transcripts are hearsay and unauthenticated.	Admission was harmless, and communications were corroborative or not necessary for conviction.

State v. Whitmore, 58 So.3d 583 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2011) (sufficiency from explicit sexual solicitation dialogue)
State v. Suire, 19 So.3d 640 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2009) (textual communication with intent to entice sexual conduct)
State v. Williams, 80 So.3d 626 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2011) (use of online aliases to solicit sexual activity from a minor)
State v. Tate, 851 So.2d 921 (La. 2003) (standard for sufficiency review under Jackson v. Virginia)
State v. Crossley, 117 So.3d 585 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2013) (circumstantial/evidentiary review framework)
State v. Lilly, 468 So.2d 1154 (La. 1985) (circumstantial evidence requires exclusion of reasonable innocence hypotheses)
State v. Lewis, 110 So.3d 644 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2013) (hearsay and non-hearsay distinctions; harmless error analysis)