Background
Zachary B. Reed was convicted by a Wabash County jury of eight counts of child pornography. The charges arose from a motion-activated camera disguised as a USB charger in a bathroom used primarily by his then-girlfriend’s 12-year-old daughter, K.L. Seven counts were based on separate video clips of K.L. masturbating, recorded on different dates or times; the eighth was based on a still image showing K.L.’s unclothed buttocks as she entered the shower.
At trial, the State presented K.L.’s recorded Child Advocacy Center interview, testimony from the investigating detective about Reed’s interview demeanor, and testimony from K.L.’s mother that she found images and videos on Reed’s laptop and later found the disguised camera. The circuit court imposed two consecutive 30-year terms, finding all eight offenses constituted a single course of conduct.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. Reed forfeited his challenges to admission of the CAC interview and the detective’s testimony by not preserving them. Even assuming error, the court held that the evidence was not closely balanced, defeating first-prong plain-error review. For the same reason, Reed could not establish prejudice from counsel’s failure to object.
The court also rejected Reed’s claim that all eight convictions rested on one unit of prosecution or violated the one-act, one-crime rule. The motion-activated device created distinct, noncontinuous recordings on separate occasions, rather than one continuous filming. But the court held that the trial court erred in treating all eight offenses as a single course of conduct for sentencing. It vacated the 60-year sentence and remanded for resentencing, directing the circuit court to determine which convictions, if any, should merge for sentencing purposes.
Key Takeaways
- Separate motion-triggered video clips recorded at different times may support separate child-pornography convictions.
- Unpreserved evidentiary objections did not warrant relief where the evidence of guilt was not closely balanced.
- A sentencing court must make a factual determination about whether any convictions merge; it may not simply treat all related recordings as one course of conduct.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a single continuous filming from distinct recordings produced by a motion-activated camera. It also underscores that related conduct does not automatically become one act for conviction or sentencing purposes.
For sentencing, however, courts must separately assess whether particular convictions merge rather than applying a blanket single-course-of-conduct finding to all recordings.