Stephen Bradley Wright, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] After meeting on a dating app, Stephen Bradley Wright engaged in sexually explicit conversations with someone named “Eilidh,” who repeatedly told him that she was 14 years old. After months of messaging, the two made plans to meet in person. The day of the meeting, Wright sent “Eilidh” an explicit photo expressing his anticipation. “Eilidh” turned out to be a fake name used by a woman posing as a minor online. When Wright arrived to meet the “teen” in person, he was met instead by a predator catchers’ group who turned him in to police. Based on the foregoing, Wright was convicted of Level 4 felony child solicitation and Level 6 felony attempted dissemination of matter harmful to minors.

[2] Wright appeals his convictions, claiming the State presented insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly believed he was communicating with a minor. He argues that throughout his two months of correspondence with “Eilidh”—which included an exchange of photographs to verify they were both real people—he believed he was just talking with a chatbot or scammer. We affirm.

Facts

[3] In 2023, 31-year-old Samantha Syrus was volunteering with Predator Catchers Incorporated, a non-profit organization that works to “catch[ ] online child predators.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 79. As part of this work, Syrus created a fake profile on Tagged, a dating application for adults only, where she listed her name as “Eilidh” and her age as 22 years old.

[4] In early January 2023, Wright sent “Eilidh” a message on Tagged. His profile listed his age as 39 years old, though he later admitted he was actually 43. In their first conversation, Wright told “Eilidh” that he was seeking a “friends with benefits” relationship. Id. at 90.

[5] After “Eilidh” gave Wright her cell phone number, the two began text messaging on January 10, 2023. In their first conversation, Wright asked “Eilidh” about her sexual “kinks.” Exhs. Vol. III, p. 15. “Eilidh” responded by stating she was really 14 years old and had to lie about her age to have a Tagged profile. Wright replied: “Cool.” Id. at 16. A few messages later, he added: “Appreciate your honesty, I'd rather know now, than too late.” Id. He then immediately continued describing his sexual kinks to “Eilidh,” sent messages describing sexual activity, and offered to send her a pornographic video.

[6] Later that same day, Wright sent “Eilidh” a photograph of an erect penis visible through clothing. “Eilidh” immediately repeated that she was 14 years old. Wright responded, “Oh s**t,” and then continued, “I can't be sending pics tho,” explaining that she was “not 18.” Id. at 33. “Eilidh” then asked if he was going to tell anyone, and Wright responded: “Who would I tell[.] I'd be in more trouble than you.” Id. at 34. After “Eilidh” told Wright that she was not a “snitch,” he immediately asked her: “What do you consider a big d**k to be[?]” Id. They continued texting for the next hour, and then Wright said: “Wish you were here playing with this hard d**k.” Id. at 38. He also continued to describe in graphic detail the sex acts he wished to engage in with “Eilidh.”

[7] A week into their correspondence, Wright asked “Eilidh” if she wanted to “hook up” and clarified that he wanted to “f**k” her. Id. at 72, 74. “Eilidh” said that she wanted to make sure he was real, so the two exchanged photographs to verify that they were real people. By agreement, both posed in a unique way with a pinky finger pointing to their ears. The photograph Syrus sent as “Eilidh” was her real face but edited to make her appear as a young girl.

[8] The two continued to exchange messages almost daily. Wright's messages were often sexually explicit and included photographs of erect penises and other pornographic images. “Eilidh” never initiated sexual conversation or sent such images back to Wright. “Eilidh” tended to send brief and “generic” messages. Tr. Vol. II, p. 166. She often discussed school, homework, and living with her mother, which Syrus explained at trial was done intentionally to stay consistent with her persona of a 14-year-old girl. When Wright was not sending messages of a sexual nature, he told “Eilidh” things about his personal life and interests: work, music, family, art, his home renovations, and his pet.

[9] A few more weeks into their correspondence, “Eilidh” mentioned that she would be house sitting for her aunt and uncle while they were away. A couple days later, on February 6, 2023, Wright asked “Eilidh” when she would be house sitting so they could meet up. “Eilidh” told him she would be house sitting February 17 through 20. Wright then sent “Eilidh” explicit messages describing in detail the sexual acts he wanted to perform with her when they were together.

[10] A few days later, Wright initiated another conversation in which he sent “Eilidh” sexually explicit messages and pictures. When Wright suggested that “Eilidh” let a friend watch her perform oral sex on him, “Eilidh” mentioned that her cousin would be around while she was housesitting if he wanted her to join. But she then explained: “She's 13 that cool with u?” Exhs. Vol. III, p. 166. Wright responded: “As long as nobody is saying anything.” Id. He then said: “This is gonna be great[.] I'm gonna f**k your brains out.” Id. at 169. A few days later, he said: “I can't wait to see you.” Id. at 176. He detailed an erotic dream he had about “Eilidh” and her cousin and asked if “Eilidh” had ever had a threesome. Wright continued to send explicit messages about their upcoming sexual encounter but said that he preferred she “make the first move” because of the “age gap.” Id. at 196.

[11] The night Wright was supposed to meet up with “Eilidh,” he cancelled. He apologized and told her: “It's the age thing, I don't think I can.” Id. at 227. He added: “As much as I want to, I don't think I can.” Id. Still, he continued to message her.

[12] On March 24, 2023, Wright asked “Eilidh” if she had plans that weekend, and the two arranged to meet at a gas station near Wright's house. On the day the two were set to meet, Wright sent a photo of an erect penis and texted, “I'm excited.” Exhs. Vol. IV, p. 27. “Eilidh” texted him that she was inside the gas station, described what she was wearing, and told him that she wanted him to buy her a drink. He asked her for a picture to confirm, and she sent a picture of herself. When Wright arrived, he was greeted by Syrus, still posing as “Eilidh” and wearing sunglasses, and she handed him a drink to purchase. Wright bought Syrus the drink, and they walked outside. There, they were joined by other members of the predator catchers’ group. Wright left and walked home, confused and “unsure” what was going on. Tr. Vol. II, p. 172.

[13] Syrus immediately reported her interactions with Wright to local authorities. The State charged Wright with Level 4 felony child solicitation and three counts of Level 6 felony attempted dissemination of matter harmful to minors. At his jury trial, Wright testified in his own defense and claimed that all along, he thought “Eilidh” was just a scammer or some kind of “computer generated” chatbot. Id. at 165. He stated that he never believed she was a 14-year-old girl but continued to message her out of “[s]heer boredom.” Id. at 176. However, he acknowledged that when he went to the gas station to meet her, he had hoped to engage in sexual activity.

[14] A jury found Wright guilty as charged. At sentencing, the parties agreed to vacate two of the three attempted dissemination counts based on double jeopardy concerns. Wright was sentenced to a total of six years, all suspended to probation, and was required to register as a sex offender.

Discussion and Decision

[15] Wright appeals his two convictions, claiming insufficient evidence supports them. When reviewing such claims, we do not reweigh evidence but consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We affirm unless no reasonable factfinder could conclude the elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence need not “overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Id. at 147 (citation omitted).

[16] On appeal, Wright challenges the evidence supporting just one element shared by both of his convictions: that he knowingly believed “Eilidh” was between 14 and 16 years old (for child solicitation), and under 18 years old (for attempted dissemination of matter harmful to a minor).¹ A person acts “knowingly” when “he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b).

[17] Wright contends that he never believed “Eilidh” was a 14-year-old girl but instead thought she was either a scammer seeking money or a chatbot. But this claim amounts to a request to reweigh the evidence and to credit his self-serving statements. The record here, which includes 270 pages of text messages between Wright and “Eilidh,” contains ample evidence allowing the finder of fact to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Wright was aware of a high probability he was communicating with someone he believed to be a 14-year-old girl.

[18] “Eilidh” explicitly and repeatedly told Wright that she was 14 years old. He responded, “Cool,” and continued to engage in an increasingly sexual conversation with her over the ensuing two months. Exhs. Vol. III, p. 16. Wright's subsequent statements to “Eilidh” demonstrate his belief in her claimed age. After Wright sent “Eilidh” a sexual photograph, she reminded him that she was 14, and he said that he could not send her any more photographs because she was not 18 years old. Wright then said, “I'd be in more trouble than you” if someone found out. Id. at 34. Wright later told “Eilidh” that he wanted her to make the first move because of the “age gap” and backed out of their first planned meeting due to the age difference. Id. at 196.

[19] Wright's statements reflect genuine concern about the age of “Eilidh” and its legal implications, which is inconsistent with Wright's claim that he was knowingly chatting with a scammer or chatbot out of boredom. Wright also shared extensive personal information with “Eilidh,” including his Facebook account name, his real address, and pictures of the interior of his home, which is all information that one would not ordinarily share with a scammer.

[20] Additionally, the record shows that early in their communications, Wright and “Eilidh” exchanged photos of themselves to verify that they were both real. This further undermines Wright's claim that he thought he was messaging a chatbot or scammer.

[21] Wright's messages of anticipation preceding the meeting at the gas station further support the conclusion that Wright believed he was really going to meet 14-year-old “Eilidh” in person and engage in sexual activity with her. And he did in fact show up to their designated meeting place. At trial, Wright acknowledged that he went to the gas station hoping to engage in sexual activity but claimed he “never thought it was a fourteen (14) year old kid.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 176.

[22] After considering this evidence and weighing it alongside Wright's testimony, the jury found him guilty on all charges. Credibility determinations belong to the finder of fact, and thus the jury here was entitled to reject Wright's version of events. See Saavedra v. State, 186 N.E.3d 134, 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), (noting that it is the “exclusive province” of the factfinder “to weigh conflicting evidence”) (quoting Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625, 627 (Ind. 2001)).

[23] Ample evidence supports the determination that Wright's conduct—including his acknowledgments that “Eilidh” was 14 years old, his exchange of verification pictures, his sharing of personal information, and his actual trip to the gas station to meet up—was wholly inconsistent with believing he was communicating with a chatbot or a scammer. We reject Wright's invitation to reweigh the evidence and affirm his convictions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   To commit Level 4 child solicitation, the State had to prove that Wright was over 21 years old when he knowingly or intentionally solicited an individual, who he believed was at least 14 years old but less than 16 years old, to engage in sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct, did so by use of a computer network, and traveled to meet that individual. See Ind. Code § 35-42-4-6(c). To prove Level 6 felony attempted dissemination of matter harmful to a minor, the State had to prove that Wright knowingly or intentionally took a substantial step towards disseminating matter that is harmful to a person he believed was less than 18 years old. See Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(a) (2024).

Weissmann, Judge.

Judges Bradford and DeBoer concur. Bradford, J., and DeBoer, J., concur