Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Kyle Wayne Thacker v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Court of Appeals of Virginia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 0570254
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Disposition: Trial court did not err finding evidence sufficient to convict appellant of four counts of reproducing child pornography; totality of evidence sufficed to exclude hypothesis someone other than appellant reproduced the child pornography found on his cellphone

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (12.4K)

• PDF

Disposition

Trial court did not err finding evidence sufficient to convict appellant of four counts of reproducing child pornography; totality of evidence sufficed to exclude hypothesis someone other than appellant reproduced the child pornography found on his cellphone

Combined Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Beales, Raphael and Bernhard
UNPUBLISHED

Argued at Arlington, Virginia

KYLE WAYNE THACKER
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 0570-25-4 JUDGE STUART A. RAPHAEL
MARCH 17, 2026
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CULPEPER COUNTY
Dale B. Durrer, Judge

Collin Chayce Crookenden (James R. Herring; Vanderpool, Frostick
& Nishanian, P.C.; Herring Law Firm, PLLC, on briefs), for
appellant.

Ken J. Baldassari, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares,1
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted Kyle Wayne Thacker of four counts of

reproducing child pornography in violation of Code § 18.2-374.1:1(C). Thacker challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was the

person who recorded the child pornography found on his cellphone. Finding no error, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

We recite the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the party that

prevailed at trial. Camann v. Commonwealth, 79 Va. App. 427, 431 (2024) (en banc). “Doing

so requires that we ‘discard’ the defendant’s evidence when it conflicts with the

Commonwealth’s evidence, ‘regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the

*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
1
Jay C. Jones succeeded Jason S. Miyares as Attorney General on January 17, 2026.
Commonwealth,’ and read ‘all fair inferences’ in the Commonwealth’s favor.” Id. (quoting

Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325, 329 (2021)).

In November 2023, Detective Dana Dodson executed a search warrant at Thacker’s

residence, a “travel trailer camper” that he shared with his twin brother. The camper had two

sofa beds and a set of bunk beds. On the bottom bunk, Dodson found a backpack containing

eight cellphones and Thacker’s birth certificate. Dodson seized all eight cellphones, taking them

to the Culpeper County Sheriff’s Office. From there, the cellphones were transferred to the

Virginia State Police.

Special Agent David Cook of the Virginia State Police successfully performed

extractions on two of the eight cellphones.2 Of the two extractions, only one, “Item 9,” yielded a

“full extraction” that could be analyzed. Cook observed “multiple files” containing “child

exploitation material.” He then made a copy of Item 9’s phone-extraction data and provided it to

Dodson for further investigation.

Dodson reviewed the extraction report. The report showed “several” social media

accounts, many of them tied to Thacker. A text message—sent by the number associated with

the cellphone—said, “Hey, Tony, it’s Kyle.” Dodson uncovered 41,974 “still images or photos”

and 3,718 videos stored on the phone. Among the videos were two “screen recordings” created

on February 8, 2020. One recording was 22 minutes in length, the other 12 minutes. Both

videos captured what the user would have seen on the phone’s screen.

Dodson testified that in both videos, the user opened separate internet tabs and “zoomed

in . . . on the identifiable minor’s genitals, buttocks, breasts.” The user repeated that process for

“over one hundred and fifty separate internet tabs.” Cook explained that by screen-recording the

2
The court qualified Cook as an expert in cellphone extraction and cellphone technology.
-2-
images and videos from the internet tabs, the phone’s user created “an entirely separate file” with

new metadata.

The cellphone extraction report showed 16 “total events” from February 8, including

“several” additional screenshots of child pornography, “drop box events, . . . and several

Facebook Messenger electronic communications.” Dodson testified that she did not have “the

email link to the drop box account,” but she confirmed that the Facebook Messenger

communications were received by an account bearing the name “Kyle Thacker.” Dodson

estimated that the February 8 screen recordings contained more than 310 “explicit images of

children” between the ages of “two to ten.”

Both screen recordings were entered into evidence. Over Thacker’s objection, the court

also admitted an audio recording of a jail call between Thacker and his mother. In the recorded

call, Thacker became defensive when his mother mentioned another instance of Thacker’s

having child pornography on an electronic device, telling her to “shut the fuck up.” Referring to

the phone on which the police had found the child pornography, Thacker said, “I didn’t realize I

still had the motherfucker.” Thacker expressed hope that “[i]f I can prove that they confiscated

all this illegally, it’s all dropped. They can’t do a fucking thing.” He again chastised his mother,

“you don’t fucking say this over the fucking phone while I’m in jail for the same fucking thing.”

The Commonwealth rested. After the court denied Thacker’s motion to strike, Thacker

called his mother to testify in his case-in-chief. Thacker did not move to strike at the close of all

evidence.

During closing argument, Thacker conceded that the cellphone identified as “Item 9”

belonged to him. But he argued that the Commonwealth had failed to prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that he downloaded the child pornography onto the phone because “other people who he

knew, who resided with him, had access to that phone.”

-3-
The trial court found Thacker guilty of one count of reproduction of child pornography

and three counts of reproduction of child pornography, second or subsequent offense. The trial

court noted that Dodson and Cook were both “entirely credible” witnesses, allowing the court to

“discard” or “discount” anything in conflict with their testimony. The court also cited Thacker’s

admissions in the jail call with his mother. At his sentencing hearing, Thacker received an active

sentence of 15 years’ incarceration (65 years with 50 years suspended).3 He now appeals.

ANALYSIS

Thacker argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was the person who

downloaded child pornography to his cellphone. Acknowledging that he failed to renew his

motion to strike at the close of all evidence, Thacker argues that we should consider his

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under the ends-of-justice exception in Rule 5A:18.

But in the bench trial below, Thacker adequately preserved this issue in his closing argument.

See Simms v. Alexandria Dep’t of Cmty. & Hum. Servs., 74 Va. App. 447, 470 n.20 (2022)

(stating that counsel “may meet the mandates of Rule 5A:18 in many ways” including “in

closing argument” (quoting Moncrief v. Div. of Child Support Enf’t ex rel. Joyner, 60 Va. App.

721, 729 (2012))).

When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, “the judgment of the trial

court is presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is ‘plainly wrong or without

evidence to support it.’” Pijor v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502, 512 (2017) (quoting Code

§ 8.01-680). This Court “does not ‘ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial

established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Ele v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 543, 548

3
On the reproduction of child pornography charge (CR24000080-01), the court
sentenced Thacker to five years’ incarceration, all suspended. For each of the three counts of
reproduction of child pornography, second or subsequent offense (CR24000080-02, -03, and -
04), the court sentenced Thacker to 20 years’ incarceration, with 15 years suspended. It ordered
the remaining five-year active sentences to run consecutively.
-4-
(2019) (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 193 (2009)). “Rather, the relevant

question is whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (quoting Williams, 278 Va. at 193).

Thacker was convicted of four counts of reproducing child pornography in violation of

Code § 18.2-374.1:1(C). “[A]ny person who ‘reproduces by any means, including by computer,

sells, gives away, distributes, [or] electronically transmits’ child pornography shall be guilty of

violating” the statute. Kelley v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 463, 468 (2015) (second alteration in

original) (quoting Code § 18.2-374.1:1(C)(i)).

We reject Thacker’s argument that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was the

person who recorded the child pornography on his cellphone.4 For one thing, Thacker conceded

below that the phone belonged to him. For another, the phone was logged into Thacker’s

Facebook Messenger account on February 8, the same date that the screen recordings were

created. Those screen recordings became separate files with their own unique metadata, thereby

showing that the images were reproduced.5 The screen recordings did not result from passive

storage or automatic downloading. Rather, the recordings reflect that the user opened internet

4
The Commonwealth argues separately that Thacker defaulted this assignment of error in
his opening brief by claiming that the evidence did not suffice to convict him of production of
child pornography in violation of Code § 18.2-374.1. To be sure, production of child
pornography under that statute is a separate offense from reproduction of child pornography
under Code § 18.2-374.1:1. But since Thacker cited the correct statute on brief and argued that
the evidence was insufficient to show that he was the person who downloaded child pornography
to his phone, his misstep in referring to production rather than reproduction of child
pornography is not significant enough to warrant bad-brief waiver. See generally Church Mut.
Ins. Co. v. Ephesus Richmond Seventh-Day Adventist Church, 84 Va. App. 371, 380 (2025).
5
See also Slavek v. Commonwealth, No. 2452-00-1, slip op. at 10, 2001 Va. App. LEXIS
553, at *12 (Oct. 9, 2001) (rejecting Slavek’s argument that the “printing of a pornographic
image from a computer screen” did not constitute “reproduction” under Code § 18.2-
374.1(B)(3), which governed reproduction at the time). This Court may consider “unpublished
[cases] as ‘informative[,]’ though not ‘binding.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 85 Va. App. 257,
278 n.9 (2025) (citing Rule 5A:1(f)).
-5-
websites and repeatedly accessed explicit images across more than 150 separate tabs. The

creation of those recordings required affirmative and sustained interaction with the device. The

trial court could reasonably infer that Thacker was the person who both exercised authenticated

control over Thacker’s personal account and used the same phone to screen-record images of

child pornography.

The evidence further supported the trial court’s finding that Thacker’s statements to his

mother during the jail call demonstrated “his knowledge of what was on the phone.” In addition

to reflecting knowledge, Thacker’s statements permitted the factfinder to infer consciousness of

his own prior misconduct. His remark, “I didn’t realize I still had the motherfucker,” in

reference to the phone containing the child pornography, supports the inference that he had

previously used the device for the illicit activity charged. Likewise, his admission that he was

“in jail for the same . . . thing” allowed the trial court to infer consciousness of guilt of the crime

for which Thacker was charged.

“As an appellate court, ‘it is our duty to look to that evidence which tends to support the

verdict,’ when the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal.” Ervin v.

Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 495, 505 (2011) (en banc) (quoting Snyder v. Commonwealth, 202

Va. 1009, 1016 (1961)). “While no single piece of [circumstantial] evidence may be sufficient,

the ‘combined force of many concurrent and related circumstances, each insufficient in itself,

may lead a reasonable mind irresistibly to a conclusion.’” Maust v. Commonwealth, 77 Va. App.

687, 706 n.7 (2023) (en banc) (alteration in original) (quoting Ervin, 57 Va. App. at 505). “[T]he

accumulation of various facts and inferences, each mounting upon the others, may indeed

provide sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” to support the conviction. Ervin, 57

Va. App. at 505.

-6-
That is true here. Based on the totality of the evidence at trial, including Thacker’s

admissions in the jail call with his mother, the evidence sufficed for a reasonable trier of fact to

exclude Thacker’s hypothesis that someone other than Thacker recorded and thereby reproduced

the child pornography that was found on his cellphone.

CONCLUSION

Because the record supports the trial court’s judgment, we will not disturb Thacker’s

convictions.

Affirmed.

-7-