State v. Odiah

• Docket Number: 2022-296-C.A.
• Decision Date: 16 January 2024
• Parties: State v. Somayina Odiah
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

1

State
v.
Somayina Odiah

No. 2022-296-C.A.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

January 16, 2024

Kent County Superior Court K2/19-567A Luis M. Matos Associate Justice

For Plaintiff: Virginia M. McGinn Department of Attorney General

For Defendant: Kara Hoopis Manosh Rhode Island Public Defender

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

OPINION

Maureen McKenna Goldberg, Justice

The defendant, Somayina Odiah (defendant or Odiah), appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury-waived trial in the Superior Court. The defendant was found guilty on one count of indecent solicitation of a child in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-37-8.8. This case came before the Supreme Court on November 29, 2023, pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issue raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After examining the memoranda and arguments presented by the parties, we conclude that cause has not been shown and proceed to decide the appeal at this time. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

2

Facts

On July 16, 2019, defendant began messaging on an online chat application called Grindr with someone who he believed was a fourteen-year-old male transitioning to a female, named "Alice."^[1] At the time of this incident, defendant was forty-one years old. Unbeknownst to defendant, the Grindr account was actually created and staffed by Corporal Luke Schatz (Corporal Schatz) of the Rhode Island State Police Computer Crimes Unit and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.^[2]

During the one-day bench trial, Corporal Schatz was the only witness to provide testimony. The trial record also consisted of, inter alia, forty-three pages of messaging on the Grindr application between defendant and "Alice," an extraction of defendant's telephone that revealed additional texting with "Alice," a recorded telephone call between defendant and "Alice," and defendant's state police interview after his arrest.

At trial, Corporal Schatz explained that, as part of the undercover investigation, the state police created a fictitious profile on Grindr, but never initiated contact with defendant. In order to create an account on Grindr, a user must enter a

3

date of birth indicating that he or she is at least eighteen years of age; but as Corporal Schatz noted during his testimony, the application "does not require verification for the date of birth." When asked, "[s]o anyone can go in and just pick an age that's over 18," Corporal Schatz responded, "[e]xactly, yes." During these undercover investigations, Corporal Schatz expounded, when a user contacts a fictitious profile, the undercover officer responds on behalf of the fictitious profile. Corporal Schatz added that the undercover officer will indicate, within the first few messages, that the fictitious user is somewhere between the ages of twelve and fourteen. Corporal Schatz further testified that, after the undercover officer indicates that the fictitious user is fourteen years of age or younger, the user will typically cease communications. That was not the case here.

At 12:09 p.m. on July 16, 2019, "Alice" received an unsolicited message on Grindr from another user named "Paul." It was later discovered-and it is undisputed-that defendant was the user of the Grindr account named "Paul." The defendant and "Alice" exchanged various messages until 12:20 p.m., whereupon defendant inquired, "Are you on snapchat[?]" "Alice" answered, "Nah, I'm 14 and my mom doesn't let me have that…I'm using this without her knowing. lol ok please don't tell[.]" The defendant responded to "Alice's" message, asking, "Are you trans[gender]?," whereupon "Alice" replied in the affirmative. The messaging between "Alice" and defendant continued.

4

At 12:22 p.m., defendant messaged, "But you are very young for me lol[.]" "Alice" responded, "Do u like younger?," and defendant rejoined, "Not ever been with a lady as young as you lol[.]" The messaging continued for approximately another twenty minutes, alternating between various topics including defendant asking "Alice" are "you still a virgin," talking about the size of body parts, and noting that "Alice" is "still very young[.]" At 12:40 p.m., defendant messaged, "Do you want us to meet someday[?]" It is notable that defendant initiated the conversation with "Alice" concerning meeting in person. "Alice" answered in the affirmative and indicated that her mother was away from the house for most of the week, whereupon defendant sent two consecutive messages to "Alice" asking: "You want me to come over" and "Tonight[.]"

Three minutes later, defendant initiated the messaging that formed the basis of the criminal information:

Defendant: "You like a big black cock"

Defendant: "You could play with it"

"Alice": "I'd like that…what else?" (Emojis omitted.)

Defendant: "In your mouth"

Defendant: "Seriously"

Defendant: "Are you serious about us meeting?"

"Alice": "Yea def[initely]"

5

"Alice": "R u"

Defendant: "Yeah but I don't want your mum to mistakenly come back home and see me with you lol"

"Alice": "Lolol^[3] that would be horrible! She's gone until Thursday, she only calls to check in"

While we deem it unnecessary to continue describing the prurient messaging, it suffices that in rendering the verdict, the trial justice appropriately described "[t]he evidence in this case [a]s chock full of support for the fact that the defendant urged or requested that Alice engage in a third degree sexual encounter with Paul, that being the defendant."

The Grindr messaging ended at 2:02 p.m.; however, defendant began texting "Alice" at 1:58 p.m. and, soon after, arranged for a telephone conversation. At 2:21 p.m., "Alice" called defendant.^[4] During the recorded telephone conversation the following colloquy ensued:

Defendant: "Wow, you, you are 14"

"Alice": "Yeah"

Defendant: "You're very young. Very, very, very young."

"Alice": "I am 14. But mature for my age."

6

The telephone conversation ended at 2:24 p.m., and Odiah and "Alice" continued texting intermittently for the remainder of the day and evening.

The following morning, defendant initiated texting with "Alice." The defendant expressed that "I feel I'm taking advantage of you!" When "Alice" replied that she could make her own decisions, defendant countered that "legally you can't for now, until you are 18[.]" The defendant noted a concern regarding meeting at "Alice's" home and potentially being spotted by neighbors; "Alice" responded, "[t]hat's true…but you know I'm 14…maybe a better idea to meet somewhere first[?]" The defendant and "Alice" made arrangements to meet at Walmart in Warwick, Rhode Island. The defendant drove to the Walmart parking lot; and upon arriving, he was taken into custody and later charged with one count of indecent solicitation of a child in violation of § 11-37-8.8.

At the state police barracks, defendant voluntarily participated in an interview with Corporal Schatz and another member of the state police. During this interview, defendant repeatedly acknowledged that he thought "Alice"...