Bloom v. Com.
| Decision Date | 02 November 2001 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 010600. |
| Citation | 262 Va. 814,554 S.E.2d 84 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Gregory Michael BLOOM v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
Christopher K. Kowalczuk, Roanoke, for appellant.
Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Randolph A. Beales, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.
Present CARRICO, C.J., LACY, HASSELL, KEENAN, KOONTZ, and LEMONS, JJ., and STEPHENSON, S.J.
Opinion by Senior Justice ROSCOE B. STEPHENSON, JR.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the record supports the trial court's finding that the defendant was sufficiently identified as the person who had made certain out-of-court statements that constituted admissible party admissions.
A jury in the Circuit Court of Roanoke County convicted Gregory Michael Bloom of (1) attempting to take indecent liberties with a child, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-26 and 370(5), and (2) solicitation to commit sodomy, in violation of Code § 18.2-29. The jury fixed Bloom's punishment at 12 months in jail for each offense. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Bloom in accordance with the jury's verdict.
The Court of Appeals affirmed Bloom's convictions. Bloom v. Commonwealth, 34 Va.App. 364, 542 S.E.2d 18 (2001). We awarded Bloom this appeal, limited to the previously stated issue.
Samantha Nicole Neff testified that, about November 1998, she began to communicate via the Internet with a person whose screen name was "Philter425." At the time, Samantha was 13 years of age; however, she told Philter425 that she was 15. According to Samantha, she and Philter425 continued to communicate via the Internet for two to three months, and the communications occurred "[m]aybe like once every other day, [or] like twice a week."
The person identified as Philter425 told Samantha that he was 28 years old, that his name was Greg, that he was originally from Ohio, and that he had a three-year-old daughter. Samantha told Philter425 that she was 5'8" tall, that she had brown hair and brown eyes, and that she was sexy. Samantha testified that, in early February 1999, Philter425 offered to buy her alcohol and to take her on dates. Philter425 also offered to give her $100 if she would sneak out of her house because, as Samantha had previously told him, she was "grounded."
Lisa Neff Akers, Samantha's mother, testified that, in early February 1999, based upon information she had received from Samantha's school, she called the police and spoke with Detective Scott Smith. Immediately thereafter, Akers went online, posing as "Nikki4403," Samantha's Internet screen name. Akers received a message from a person identified as Philter425, stating, Akers, as Nikki4403, responded that she would communicate with Philter425 again on the night of Friday, February 5, 1999. Akers then contacted Detective Smith.
Detective Smith testified that, based on the information he had received from Samantha and her mother, he logged onto the Internet that Friday night as Nikki4403. Shortly thereafter, Smith received an "instant message"1 from Philter425, and the following exchange occurred via the Internet:
Based upon this communication, Detective Smith surmised that the person identified as Philter425 would arrive at the designated place at 10:30 p.m., driving a silver Tercel automobile. Therefore, Smith arranged to have several police officers accompany him to that location.
At 10:34 p.m., a 1992 silver Toyota Tercel entered the Burger King parking lot, paused near the unattended pay telephone, and then departed. The officers immediately stopped the vehicle, which was driven by Bloom and registered in his name.
Detective Smith questioned Bloom about whether he had been online that evening as Philter425. Bloom initially denied, but eventually admitted, that he had sent the messages under the screen name Philter425.
Prior to trial, Bloom filed a motion in limine, seeking to prohibit the Commonwealth from introducing into evidence all statements made by Philter425 to Samantha via the Internet. Bloom asserted that these statements "should not be admitted into evidence because there is no reliable evidence to suggest that [he] actually made the statements."
In its response to Bloom's motion in limine, the Commonwealth represented to the trial court the following:
Based upon these representations by the Commonwealth, which were unchallenged by Bloom, the trial court concluded that Bloom was sufficiently identified as the person who had communicated with Samantha via the Internet as Philter425. The court, therefore, overruled Bloom's motion in limine and permitted Samantha to testify to the statements made to her by Philter425 under the party-admission exception to the hearsay rule. The court aptly noted, however, that whether the statements were made by Bloom was "one of the ultimate questions to be determined by the jury."
Bloom contends in this appeal, as he did in the trial court and the Court of Appeals, that Samantha's testimony about statements made to her by Philter425 was inadmissible because the Commonwealth failed to show that he actually had made them. Thus, Bloom asserts, the statements were not admissible under the party-admission exception to the hearsay rule.
It is well established, as Bloom...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glenn v. Commonwealth
...avowal of counsel of testimony that could be presented constitutes a proper proffer, if unchallenged." Bloom v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 814, 821, 554 S.E.2d 84, 87 (2001); Whittaker v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 966, 969, 234 S.E.2d 79, 81 25 That said, the validity of a guilty plea does not requi......
-
Hicks v. Commonwealth
...with respect to factual questions underlying the admissibility of evidence is proof by a preponderance ...." Bloom v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 814, 821, 554 S.E.2d 84 (2001) (quoting Witt v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 670, 674, 212 S.E.2d 293 (1975) ). The "trial court determines these facts" as pa......
-
Glenn v. Com.
...avowal of counsel of testimony that could be presented constitutes a proper proffer, if unchallenged." Bloom v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 814, 821, 554 S.E.2d 84, 87 (2001); Whittaker v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 966, 969, 234 S.E.2d 79, 81 25. That said, the validity of a guilty plea does not requ......
-
Bethea v. Commonwealth
...avowal of counsel of testimony that could be presented constitutes a proper proffer, if unchallenged." Bloom v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 814, 821, 554 S.E.2d 84 (2001) ; Whittaker v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 966, 969, 234 S.E.2d 79 (1977). Deeming this avowal a "proper proffer," however, merely r......
-
Authentication
...testimony demonstrating personal knowledge of defendant’s e-mail address and receipt of six e-mails in question. Bloom v. Commonwealth , 554 S.E.2d 84 (Va. 2001). Instant message transcripts admitted because personal details mentioned by the screen name author match defendant’s personal det......
-
Authentication
...testimony demonstrating personal knowledge of defendant’s e-mail address and receipt of six e-mails in question. Bloom v. Commonwealth , 554 S.E.2d 84 (Va. 2001). Instant message transcripts admitted because personal details mentioned by the screen name author match defendant’s personal det......
-
Authentication
...testimony demonstrating personal knowledge of defendant’s e-mail address and receipt of six e-mails in question. Bloom v. Commonwealth , 554 S.E.2d 84 (Va. 2001). Instant message transcripts admitted because personal details mentioned by the screen name author match defendant’s personal det......
-
Evidence
...a protective order, and by ordering production without a motion to compel discovery from the plaintiff. VIRGINIA Bloom v. Commonwealth , 554 S.E.2d 84, 87 n. 2 (Va. 2001). Conversations over the Internet differ from telephone conversations in that participants in Internet communications do ......