Terik C. Prater v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 08A02-1602-CR-406

In May 2015, 16-year-old T.M. received multiple sexually explicit Facebook Messenger messages and photos (including images of an erect penis) sent from Terik C. Prater’s account; she reported them to police.
Prater lived nearby and regularly communicated with T.M.’s family; T.M. had previously exchanged benign Messenger messages with Prater hours before the explicit transmissions.
Police interviewed Prater after Miranda warnings; he initially denied but later admitted (claiming accidentally) to sending the explicit messages and photos.
The State charged Prater with dissemination of matter harmful to minors (Level 6 felony) and distribution/exhibition of obscene matter (Class A misdemeanor); the misdemeanor count was dismissed after a guilty-plea agreement was withdrawn and the jury later acquitted/directed verdict on the misdemeanor.
A jury convicted Prater of the Level 6 felony; the trial court imposed 2.5 years executed. Prater appealed arguing the State failed to prove he knowingly or intentionally sent the material to a minor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State proved Prater acted knowingly or intentionally in disseminating harmful matter to a minor	The messages/photos and surrounding messenger conversation support an inference Prater knowingly sent explicit material to T.M.; jury could discredit his mistake/alcohol/phone-malfunction defense	Prater contends he intended to send the messages to another adult recipient and lacked the requisite intent to target a minor	Court affirmed: circumstantial evidence (prior benign exchanges, Messenger display of contact name/photo, admissions) sufficed to prove knowing/intentional dissemination
Whether § 35-49-3-3(b) immunity for internet transmissions applies because sender did not believe recipient was a minor	State maintains statute exception inapplicable here because defendant intended recipient to be the minor; alternatively, State could have relied on obscenity/child-pornography exceptions (not contested)	Prater argues the State did not prove he believed the recipient was under 18 and therefore the internet-transmission exception bars liability	Court found defendant waived challenge to obscenity/child-pornography alternatives and that evidence supported the jury’s inference he knew recipient was a minor; claim fails

Melton v. State, 993 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (appellate standard: do not reweigh evidence or judge credibility; review only evidence favorable to verdict)
Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2009) (reasonable inferences from evidence sustain conviction when probative and substantial)
Mitchell v. State, 557 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. 1990) (intent may be inferred from surrounding circumstances; circumstantial evidence can support verdict)