Reconsideration denied July 7, 2015 -- Cert. applied for.
Computer child exploitation. Newton Superior Court. Before Judge Wynne.
Crawford & Boyle, Eric C. Crawford, for appellant.
Layla H. Zon, District Attorney, Melanie M. Bell, Agatha K. Romanowski, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
MCFADDEN, Judge. Ellington, P. J., and Dillard, J., concur.
After a jury trial, Andrew Skelhorn was convicted of three counts of violating OCGA § 16-12-100.2, the Computer or Electronic Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 2007. He appeals his convictions, arguing that the state failed to prove that he used a " computer on-line service" as alleged in the obscene Internet contact counts of the indictment. We find that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Skelhorn used an on-line messaging service, which the statute expressly includes in the list of examples of computer on-line services. Skelhorn argues that Count 1 of the indictment, which charged him with using an Internet chat room to attempt to solicit, lure, and entice a child, was defective because it failed to allege the use of a computer on-line service. An Internet chat room is expressly listed as a kind of computer on-line service, so the indictment was not defective. For this reason, we reject Skelhorn's argument that the trial court should have included the term " computer on-line service" when it instructed the jury on this count. We agree with Skelhorn that this count required proof that he took a substantial step toward committing the crime, but we find that the evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to find that he took a substantial step. Finally, Skelhorn argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. By affirmatively stating that he had no objection to the admission of the evidence he sought to suppress, he has waived this argument. We therefore affirm the convictions.
[332 Ga.App. 783] 1. Evidence.
The evidence, on appeal from a criminal conviction,
must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility but only determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979).
Morris v. State, 322 Ga.App. 682 (1) (746 S.E.2d 162) (2013) (citation omitted).
So viewed, the evidence showed that on August 12, 2010, an investigator with the Newton County Sheriff's Office entered a Yahoo! chat room called Georgia Romance. The investigator used the screen name " firstname.lastname@example.org." She was approached by Skelhorn, who was using the screen name " ukcru77 (Andrew Skelhorn)." Skelhorn told aimee_13 that he was feeling " a lil horney"  and asked if she had any pictures of herself or a webcam. When she said she did not, Skelhorn told her that he was " hard as a rock," that he ...