Com. v. Hopersberger, B. ( 2021 )

J-S17016-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
BRIAN HOPERSBERGER :
:
Appellant : No. 1027 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 11, 2020,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0004572-2015.
BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 8, 2021
Brian Hopersberger appeals from the judgment of sentence of 20 to 40
years’ incarceration. A jury convicted him of possessing over 100 digital files
of child pornography, distributing three of those files to police, and using his
home computer to do so.1 We affirm.
On July 11, 2015, through law-enforcement-specific, BitTorrent
software,2 investigators identified child pornography being made publicly
available from someone’s Internet-ready device. Officers identified a specific
IP address as the source of this child pornography. The investigators
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6312(c), 6312(d), and 7512(a).
2 This software is a peer-to-peer, file-sharing program that exchanges digital
data between users across the globe. Unlike public, BitTorrent programs,
which download piecemeal data from various users simultaneously, the law-
enforcement-specific, BitTorrent program downloads entire files from one
computer at a time.
J-S17016-21
downloaded three videos of child pornography from the target IP address:
hence, the three counts of dissemination.
A few weeks later, in furtherance of their investigation, officers executed
a search warrant for Hopersberger’s Luzerne County home. He was not there
at the time, but his brother, Philip Hopersberger, was. Philip informed the
officers that he lived with Hopersberger, they had separate bedrooms, the
computer in Hopersberger’s bedroom belonged to Hopersberger, and he (i.e.,
Philip) “doesn’t even know how to use a computer.” N.T., 2/12,20, at 191.
The lead investigator believed Philip and eliminated him as suspect. See id.
Within Hopersberger’s bedroom, police found a computer wired directly
to the modem. They also discovered a thumb drive on the desk next to the
computer tower. The agents seized the tower and thumb drive.
The preliminary evaluation of the computer tower located 116 thumbnail
images of child pornography under the computer’s username “John.” Id. at
49, 55. “John” was the only username on the computer. The examination
also located a tax document listed as Brian D. Hopersberger in the same folder
as some of the pornography. The computer had the BitLord, peer-to-peer,
file-sharing program, with an installation date of December 14, 2014. Id. at
49. This software was compatible with the BitTorrent software that law
enforcement had previously used to download the three videos of child
pornography.
Evaluation of the computer’s “recycle bin” disclosed a folder listed “LS”
which contained 15 movies of child pornography. These files had been moved
-2-
J-S17016-21
to the recycle bin on May 16, 2015. Furthermore, the investigation revealed
110 thumbnails of child pornography, of which 106 were notably “child
erotica.” Id. at 145-47.
Significantly, a computer-forensic expert also evaluated the computer’s
Internet activity and observed a history reflecting the use of the BitTorrent
website and BitTorrent files indicative of child pornography. The expert
explained that the user of the computer had searched on various days of the
week, at all hours of the day, and that the searches used child-pornography
terms. One of the terms, “Cbaby,” stood out, because it was in the name of
one of the files the police downloaded on July 11, 2015. Id. at 162-63.
The expert’s analysis also demonstrated that only Hopersberger had
ever used the computer for e-mails and Facebook from July through August
of 2015. Id. at 165-66. The username “BrianHops71@gmail” was used,
which listed a phone number and address and an access time of June 2, 2015.
Id. at 166. The address associated with that account was Hopersberger’s
residence.
Based upon all of the foregoing and other evidence of record, the expert
opined as follows:
[G]oing through the Internet analysis, I didn’t see evidence
of anyone else, besides [Hopersberger using the computer],
and I noted prolonged use of [his] e-mail account and his
Facebook account . . . there was prolonged searches of child
pornography over the course of months, days, and weeks at
various times. There was nothing that would have indicated
that anyone else had been using this computer system.
-3-
J-S17016-21
Furthermore, based on the location of this computer, which
was in Brian Hopersberger’s room, plugged into the wall, if
someone else were to have been using this computer
system, they would have had to have been in his room at
various times, various days, weeks, and months. It’s just
not reasonable.
Id. at 168-69.
Crediting the expert and the rest of the Commonwealth’s evidence, the
jury convicted Hopersberger on all counts, and the trial court sentenced him
as described above. This timely appeal followed.
Hopersberger raises one appellate issue: “Did the Commonwealth fail to
establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [he] disseminate, downloaded,
and/or possessed child pornography in violation of [the relevant statutes]?”
Hopersberger’s Brief at 4.
In Hopersberger’s view, the Commonwealth failed to identify him as the
individual who possessed and distributed child pornography from his bedroom
computer. He offers various contentions in an attempt to undermine the
Commonwealth’s evidence, predominately based on his testimony during the
defense’s case-in-chief. See id. at 17 (Hopersberger indicating that (1) the
name on the IP address and the phone number was similar to and/or
associated with his son; (2) that his son moved out in the winter of 2015; and
(3) that he resided in the home, not only with Philip, but also with Diane
Krasinksi and, for a time, his son, also named Brian Hopersberger).
However, by relying upon his own, self-serving testimony, Hopersberger
ignores our scope of review for this issue. For a sufficiency-of-the-evidence
-4-
J-S17016-21
claim, “our standard of review is de novo; however, our scope of review is
limited to considering the evidence of record, and all reasonable inferences
arising therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth
as the verdict winner.” Commonwealth v. Rushing, 99 A.3d 416, 420–21
(Pa. 2014). Hopersberger would have us credit only his testimony and view
it in in the light most favorable to himself. This we may not do. See id.Instead, as Hopersberger conceded, the jury, “while passing upon the
credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to
believe all, part, or none of the evidence.” Hopersberger’s Brief at 14 (quoting
Commonwealth v. Gooding, 818 A.2d 546, 549 (Pa. Super. 2003)). Here,
the jury refused to credit Hopersberger’s rendition of events. Thus, neither
he nor this Court may rely upon his testimony to challenge the sufficiency of
the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief.
Turning to the evidence therein, we find sufficient proof to sustain the
110 crimes for which Hopersberger stands convicted.
First, in Pennsylvania, it is a crime when someone “knowingly . . .
distributes . . . to others, any . . . computer depiction . . . depicting a child
under the age of 18 years engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the
simulation of such act.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6312(c). It is also a crime if one
“intentionally views or knowingly possesses or controls any . . . photograph,
film, videotape, computer depiction . . . depicting a child under the age of 18
years engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such act
. . . .” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6312(d).
-5-
J-S17016-21
Additionally, a person may not use “a communication facility to commit
. . . any crime which constitutes a felony under this title.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
7512(a). A “communication facility” is an “instrumentality used or useful in
the transmission of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or
intelligence of any nature transmitted, in whole or in part, including, but not
limited to, telephone, wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-
optical systems or the mail.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512(c). Thus, an Internet-ready
device, such as Hopersberger’s home computer, is a “communication facility.”
Limiting our review, as we must, to the evidence most favorable to the
Commonwealth, we accept that the 100+ digital files at bar were child
pornography, and they were on the computer and/or in the jump drive
recovered from Hopersberger’s bedroom. The forensic-computer expert
reviewed the metadata from those seized devices and pinpointed file creation
times and Internet searches for child pornography. These occurred
continuously during Hopersberger’s nearly year-long ownership of the
computer; they occurred at all hours of the day and night, on weekdays and
weekends.
As noted above, the expert testified that “based on the location of this
computer, which was in Brian Hopersberger’s room, plugged into the wall, if
someone else were to have been using this computer system, they would have
had to have been in his room at various times, various days, weeks, and
months.” N.T., 2/12/20, at 168-69. Thus, the expert anticipated
Hopersberger’s alibi --that someone snuck into his bedroom, and that person
-6-
J-S17016-21
repeatedly downloaded, viewed, and disseminated child pornography on and
from Hopersberger’s desktop computer and on his jump drive, without his
knowledge. The expert dismissed this alibi as unreasonable.
This expert opinion, which the jury could accept at face value, was,
alone, sufficient evidence to conclude that Hopersberger knew exactly what
materials were on his computer and jump drive, because he put them there.
Indeed, it would strain credulity to think that anyone other than Hopersberger
would have the around-the-clock, unlimited access to the computer and jump
drive in Hopersberger’s bedroom. The random dates and times at which the
user accessed child pornography on the bedroom computer and the
repetitiveness of that access are strong circumstantial evidence leading to the
reasonable inference that Hopersberger, in fact, was the person who
knowingly downloaded, viewed, and disseminated more than 100 files of child
pornography.
All remaining arguments to the contrary in Hopersberger’s Brief, which
we need not reiterate here, go to the weight of the Commonwealth’s evidence,
not to its sufficiency. See Hopersberger’s Brief at 17-19. “We will not
now weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the jury.”
Commonwealth v. Blystone, 617 A.2d 778, 780 (Pa. Super. 1992). It was
the jury’s prerogative to resolve the weight of the evidence. The jury did so
in favor of the Commonwealth.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-7-
J-S17016-21
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/08/2021
-8-