Steven Giles, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In August of 2022, Steven Giles was found guilty of Level 4 felony child solicitation, Level 6 felony attempted possession of child pornography, and two counts of Level 6 felony attempted dissemination of matter harmful to minors, after he had attempted to meet with a girl, whom he believed to be thirteen years old and had been texting for approximately one month. Giles challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for each count. Because we find the evidence sufficient to support each of Giles's convictions, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In November of 2021, Samantha Syrus was an adult volunteer in Terre Haute for Predator Catchers Incorporated (“PCI”), an organization which “expose[s] child predators on-line.” Tr. Vol. III p. 3. At PCI, Syrus's “position was a decoy[,]” and she had been trained not to initiate contact, sexual conversations, or “meet up” conversations. Tr. Vol. II p. 144. As part of this work, Syrus created an online profile on a dating application with a picture of herself which had been altered to make her appear younger. To create the online profile, Syrus indicated that she was between eighteen and twenty-one years old.

[3] On November 17, 2021, Giles initiated a chat on the dating application with Syrus. At the time, Giles was forty-seven years old. Syrus responded to Giles on January 4, 2022. The pair exchanged phone numbers and “moved over to texting[,]” which was important for Syrus because “once you drop your age as anything under eighteen (18) they can ban you [․] from the app.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 150, 151. After Giles told Syrus that he was a truck driver, he asked Syrus what she does for work. Syrus responded, “Oh neat that sounds like fun getting to drive a lot well I feel like I can b honest with u sooo I'm rly 13 please dont b mad at me I jus have to put my age as 18+ so I can get on the app.” Ex. Vol. IV p. 14.

[4] Giles responded, “Pic” and then “I understand that every one needs to have some fun now and then[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 14. Syrus responded with a picture, altered to “make [her] look younger.” Tr. Vol. II p. 152. Giles responded, “Rather it be looking for a boyfriend or sex” and “[i]t's just sex if that's what both are wanting the world we live in just wants to make it more then what it is It's two people satisfy each other and having a good time that's what life is about[.]” Ex. Vol. IV pp. 15–16. Giles also messaged, “Ages only a number to me” and “It's important that two people get along I know how to treat each other if you can do that well age does not matter[.]” Ex. Vol. IV pp. 16, 17. Giles asked Syrus to send more pictures and asked, “what about on top how are u in that area[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 27. Syrus responded, “U mean my boobs?” to which Giles responded, “Yes[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 27.

[5] At some point, while discussing when they could meet, Giles messaged, “I would like to see a picture of your boots [(sic)] and a picture of your butt and my next question is are you shaved down there because I do not like [hair].” Ex. Vol. IV p. 28. Syrus indicated that she would not send him explicit pictures. Giles asked Syrus if she was “sexually active” and indicated, “I'm fixed so you don't need to worry about getting pregnant[.]” Ex. Vol. IV pp. 36, 37. Giles also told Syrus about another underaged girl he had dated who had sent him “nude pics” and “was very sexually active at 14[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 40. Syrus responded that she would send him a picture when they met “in person so long as [Giles was] gud to wait itll happen[,]” to which Giles responded, “I guess I can you could at least send me one lol[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 41.

[6] After asking more about her previous sexual encounters, Giles asked Syrus, “Is that what ur wanting to do with me ?” Ex. Vol. IV p. 42. Syrus responded, “The last time was like last month idk ur the bf lol way do u want I won't argue hehe[,]” to which Giles responded, “Sure do baby ur my girlfriend I should be able to anything right[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 42. The next day, Giles asked Syrus to video chat before they met in person and said that he needed the “feel of [her] touch[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 46. Giles later asked again for a “pic of [her] cute butt[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 54. He then sent a picture of his erect penis.

[7] A few days later, Giles texted Syrus, “[s]end me beautiful pic of you today baby[,]” to which Syrus sent a picture of her face and asked, “where's urs?”. Ex. Vol. IV p. 67. Giles responded that he was getting in the shower and “horny[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 67. Giles then sent a picture of his erect penis. At some point, Giles asked Syrus for a “full body pic” and asked if she slept “naked or with pajamas on[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 83. Giles also wrote, “I want more then just text massaging for a Relationship I want to be able to talk on the phone and exchange pictures that are true right to the moment I asked you to send me a picture of you in your pajamas but you didn't do that I wanted to see your whole body[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 87.

[8] After Giles scheduled a time to meet Syrus and asked, “[y]ou sure ur not in with the cops I don't want to be getting in trouble for meet up with you[,]” Syrus reiterated that she was thirteen years old. Ex. Vol. IV p. 99. Giles told Syrus about a fourteen-year-old girl that “was good about sending [him] some nude pics[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 105. Giles later messaged, “There is nothing wrong with nudes anyways” and “[p]lus I know ur[ ] Serious if you did a nude.” Ex. Vol. IV p. 109. Syrus reiterated that she would not send one until they met in person. Giles later messaged, “Go into the bathroom and take a nude picture of yourself and send it to me that way I know you're serious about meeting up with me on Saturday can you please at least do that for me” and “[e]ven just a topless will be OK it's just a picture[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 118. Giles later claimed that he had previously “video chatted” with the fourteen-year-old girl and had “seen her naked and everything[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 120. Giles and Syrus spoke on the telephone, and Giles expressed that he was nervous to meet with Syrus because she was an underage girl. Giles made plans to meet Syrus when her mother was working and suggested that they meet and go to his house.

[9] Eventually, Giles and Syrus agreed to meet at a local Burger King on January 21, 2022, where he was confronted by PCI volunteers. Giles told the volunteers that Syrus had told him that she was thirteen. Giles also admitted that he had invited Syrus to his house to “cuddle.” Ex. 4 at 4:07–4:34. Terre Haute Police independently investigated the matter.

[10] The State ultimately charged Giles with Level 4 felony child solicitation, Level 6 felony attempted possession of child pornography, and two counts of Level 6 felony attempted dissemination of matter harmful to minors. After a jury trial in August of 2025, the jury found Giles guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate five years of incarceration, with all but thirty-seven days suspended to probation.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Giles challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain each of his convictions.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (brackets, citations, emphasis, and quotations omitted). In other words, when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the convictions, neither reweighing evidence nor reassessing witness credibility” and “affirm the judgment unless no reasonable factfinder could find the defendant guilty.” Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947, 958 (Ind. 2016).

I. The Evidence Was Sufficient to Prove that Giles Committed Level 4 Felony Child Solicitation

[12] Giles contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for Level 4 felony child solicitation. To prove that Giles had committed Level 4 felony child solicitation, the State was required to prove that Giles, a person over eighteen years old, had knowingly or intentionally solicited “an individual [he] believe[d] to be a child under fourteen (14) years of age, to engage in sexual intercourse, other sexual conduct [․], or any fondling or touching intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person” and that he had done so by using a computer network and had traveled to meet the individual he believed to be a child. Ind. Code § 35-42-4-6(b). “Solicit” means “to command, authorize, urge, incite, request, lure, entice, or advise an individual” to perform an act described in subsection (b). Ind. Code § 35-42-4-6(a). Solicitation can be done, inter alia, in person, “by telephone or wireless device[,]” in writing, and via computer network. Ind. Code § 35-42-4-6(a).

[13] Giles specifically argues that his conversations with Syrus did not constitute “solicitation” and only consisted of “sexualized conversation, general commentary, and discussion of possible meeting.” Appellant's Br. p. 12. He contends that he “never commanded, authorized, urged, incited, requested, lured, enticed, or advised” Syrus to engage in sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct. Appellant's Br. p. 14 (brackets and quotation marks omitted).

[14] We believe that the facts undisputedly constituted solicitation here. Giles's conversations with Syrus, whom he believed to be thirteen years old, were calculated efforts to persuade her to engage in sexual conduct. Giles elicited information regarding Syrus's sexual history, height, and breast size. Giles asked Syrus about her previous sexual encounters, asked her, “[i]s that what ur wanting to do with me[,]” and indicated that he “should be able to anything” as her boyfriend. Ex. Vol. IV p. 42. Giles indicated to Syrus, “I'm fixed so you don't need to worry about getting pregnant[.]” Ex. Vol. IV pp. 36, 37. Giles also messaged Syrus that he needed the “feel of [her] touch[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 46. He sent a picture of his erect penis. At some point, Giles messaged Syrus that he was getting in the shower and “horny[,]” and sent Syrus another picture of his erect penis. Ex. Vol. IV p. 67. Giles also asked Syrus for a “full body pic” and asked if she slept “naked or with pajamas on[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 83. Giles told Syrus he was “looking forward to seeing [her] and loving on [her,]” and expressed that he wished he could take a shower with her. Ex. Vol. IV p. 45. In a phone conversation with Syrus, discussing the possibility of being caught, Giles stated, “[w]hy get somebody in trouble over it, especially, especially when it comes to just, you know, having fun in the bedroom, sex and all that, that's all that is, it's just fun.” Ex. 3 at 11:55–12:10; Tr. Vol. II p. 177. Later in the conversation, Giles asked Syrus if she wanted to come to his house and stay the night.

[15] We believe that an inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence that Giles was, at the very least, authorizing, urging, and/or requesting that Syrus engage in sexual intercourse and/or sexual conduct with him. Giles's communications with Syrus, which were often sexual in nature, included asking if Syrus wanted to have sex with him, stating that he “should be able to [do] anything” as she was his “girlfriend,” stating that he was “horny,” statements about sexual intercourse being “just fun” and asking if she would stay the night at his house, indicated that he sought her personal engagement in sexual intercourse. In short, Giles's communications with Syrus were solicitations within the meaning of Indiana Code section 35-42-4-6(a). See Kuypers v. State, 878 N.E.2d 896, 899 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (providing that “the statute does not require that the solicitor inject details into the conversation such as the time and place of the act” and “[t]here is no requirement that a solicitor actually complete the act of meeting with his or her victim to commit the crime of child solicitation”), trans. denied.

II. The Evidence was Sufficient to Prove that Giles Committed Level 6 Felony Attempted Possession of Child Pornography

[16] A person commits Level 6 felony attempted possession of child pornography when he knowingly or intentionally attempts to possess or access, with intent to view, an image that depicts or describes sexual conduct by a child who he knows to be less than eighteen years of age, and that lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, and takes a substantial step toward the commission of the crime. Ind. Code § 35-42-4-4(d); Ind. Code § 35-49-2-1(3); Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1(a).

[17] Giles contends that his requests for Syrus to send him nude pictures of herself did not constitute an attempt to possess “images depicting sexual conduct[.]” Appellant's Br. p. 16. Indiana law defines “sexual conduct” to include exhibition of the uncovered genitals or female breast with less than fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, intended to satisfy or arouse the sexual desires of any person. Ind. Code § 35-42-4-4(a)(5).

[18] “[D]epictions of nudity, without more, constitute protected expression.” Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 112, 110 S.Ct. 1691, 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990); [New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 765 n.18 (1982)], 102 S.Ct. 3348 (“[N]udity, without more[,] is protected expression.”); id. at 773, 102 S.Ct. 3348 (observing that protected expressions of child nudity could be found in materials “ranging from medical textbooks to pictorials in the National Geographic”); United States v. Johnson, 639 F.3d 433, 439 (8th Cir. 2011) (describing “mere nudity” as “innocent family photos, clinical depictions, or works of art”); United States v. Wallenfang, 568 F.3d 649, 657 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding that “[n]udity alone” does not satisfy the definition of “lascivious exhibition of the genitals” (one of the definitions of “sexually explicit conduct” under federal law) and explaining that a photograph is “lascivious” only if it is “sexual in nature” (quotations omitted) ); United States v. Griesbach, 540 F.3d 654, 656 (7th Cir. 2008) (“[M]ore than mere nudity is required to make an image lascivious; the focus of the image must be on the genitals or the image must be otherwise sexually suggestive.”).

Siebenaler v. State, 124 N.E.3d 61, 68–69 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (first and second set of brackets added, footnote omitted).

[19] While Giles is correct that mere nudity is not enough to convict him, the evidence sufficiently demonstrates Giles had attempted to possess nude pictures of Syrus, again, whom he had believed to be thirteen years old, in sexually explicit contexts. For example, while discussing when they could meet, Giles messaged Syrus, “I would like to see a picture of your boots [(sic)] and a picture of your butt and my next question is are you shaved down there because I do not like [hair].” Ex. Vol. IV p. 28. Giles later told Syrus about an underaged girl he had dated who had sent him “nude pics” and who “was very sexually active at 14[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 40. When Syrus responded that she would send him a picture when they met in person, Giles again asked Syrus for “at least [․] one” explicit photo. Ex. Vol. IV p. 41.

[20] At one point, Giles asked Syrus for a “pic of [her] cute butt[,]” and then sent her a picture of his erect penis. Ex. Vol. IV p. 54. At some point, Giles asked Syrus for a “full body pic” and asked if she slept “naked or with pajamas on[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 83. Giles again told Syrus about a fourteen-year-old girl that “was good about sending [him] some nude pics[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 105. Giles later messaged, “There is nothing wrong with nudes anyways” and “[p]lus I know ur[ ] Serious if you did a nude.” Ex. Vol. IV p. 109. Giles also told Syrus to, “Go into the bathroom and take a nude picture of yourself and send it to me that way I know you're serious about meeting up” and “[e]ven just a topless will be OK it's just a picture[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 118. He claimed that he had previously “video chatted” with a fourteen-year-old girl and had “seen her naked and everything she even was playing with a dildo[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 120.

[21] In light of these messages, Giles's argument that “the evidence showed requests for photographs that could encompass a wide range of images” is unconvincing. Appellant's Br. p. 16. We agree with the State that Giles's messages to Syrus did not seek “innocent or protected expressions [․] like those found in medical textbooks or National Geographic.” Appellee's Br. p. 18. Rather, it is clear from the context of Giles's text messages that he was attempting to obtain sexually explicit pictures of Syrus, whom he had believed to be thirteen years old, to satisfy his own sexual desires, on multiple occasions. The evidence is sufficient to support the jury's determination that Giles had committed Level 6 felony attempted possession of child pornography.

III. The Evidence was Sufficient to Prove that Giles Committed Level 6 Felony Attempted Dissemination of Matter Harmful to Minors

[22] Giles contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for attempted dissemination of matter harmful to minors, specifically that the State failed to prove that Giles had known or believed that Syrus was under eighteen years old. To prove Level 6 felony attempted dissemination of matter harmful to a minor, the State had to prove that Giles had knowingly or intentionally taken a substantial step towards disseminating matter that is harmful to a person he had believed was less than eighteen years old. See Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(a).

[23] Giles argues that Syrus had represented her age inconsistently and that he had “stated that he did not believe [Syrus's] claim that she was thirteen[.]” Appellant's Br. p. 17. The record contains ample evidence which would allow the jury to determine that Giles had believed Syrus to be a thirteen-year-old girl when he sent two pictures of his exposed penis to her. While Syrus's initial profile on the online dating application indicated that she was an adult, Syrus told Giles that she was thirteen more than once after they had started texting. Syrus talked about her middle school, sent pictures to Giles which were altered to “make [her] look younger[,]” and repeatedly discussed school, homework, and living with her mother. Tr. Vol. II p. 152. Furthermore, after Syrus had expressed to Giles that she was thirteen, Giles told Syrus about a fourteen-year-old girl that he had apparently dated previously. Giles had even asked Syrus, “[d]id you get your homework done baby” and texted her “[h]ope you have a beautiful day at school[.]” Ex. Vol. IV p. 44. This evidence is more than sufficient to prove that Giles had believed Syrus to be under eighteen years old. Giles's argument to the contrary amounts to nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Griffith, 59 N.E.3d at 958.

[24] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.