Charged Over Messages Someone Else Sent? Start With the Facts.

Short Answer: An Account in Your Name Does Not Prove Who Typed a Message

No, an account in your name does not, by itself, prove you wrote a message. A phone, email address or social media profile tied to you shows who the account belongs to. It does not show who held the device or typed the words.

Many people share phones, passwords, computers and household accounts. A spouse, roommate, child or coworker may have had access. Ownership and authorship are two different questions.

Every case involving online messages is different, and a lawyer can review the specific facts with you. Being charged for messages someone else sent online in Texas depends on what the state can connect to you personally. The rest of this page explains how that connection gets made and what a defense review examines.

What the State Must Show Before a Message Is Tied to You

The state generally must prove that the accused person sent the messages and had the intent the specific offense requires. The offense matters, because each Texas online charge has its own wording.

Under Texas Penal Code § 33.021, a person 17 or older can commit an offense by communicating in a sexually explicit manner with a minor over the Internet or by text message. The person must act intentionally, and the conduct must be tied to an intent to commit a listed offense. A separate solicitation offense in the same section requires that the person knowingly solicit a minor to meet, with intent that sexual contact or intercourse follow. The degree of felony depends on the offense and the minor’s age.

Identity and intent are separate issues. Proof that an account exists is not proof of who was using it at a given time. The state has to connect the conduct, the intent and the accused person.

A different rule applies when someone else gave police your identifying information. Under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 55A.006, a person may be able to expunge identifying information from certain arrest records. That is possible when another arrested person falsely gave the person’s identity without consent, and the deception is the only reason that person’s identifying information is contained in the applicable arrest records and files. For the full range of charges, see our online sex crime charges overview.

Device Access: Who Had the Phone, Passcode and Open Account

The first fact to pin down is who physically had the device, and when. Start with the basics. Was the phone unlocked? Was an app still logged in? Did anyone else know the passcode or have a face or fingerprint unlock set up?

Whether a person actually had control of the device at the relevant time can be a central question in the defense.

Ask where the device was kept. A phone on a kitchen counter or in a shared car is different from one in a locked bag. Children, relatives and coworkers may have picked it up.

Device records may show which apps were opened and when. Review any device report with counsel, not from a summary alone. Write down who had access, when, and where the device sat. Details recalled early are more useful than details recalled months later.

IP Records, Subscriber Data and Login History

IP address and login records can show which connection and which device were used. They do not, by themselves, name one person.

An IP address usually points to an internet connection at a certain time. A household, workplace or public Wi-Fi network can share that connection among many users. Subscriber records show who holds the internet account. They do not show who was at the keyboard.

Login history, new-device alerts and session logs can show whether a device the accused person used regularly sent the message. Compare those logs against the devices the account normally uses. Check whether the location and time match where the accused person was.

Federal agencies sometimes investigate these cases too. The Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program supports investigations of technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation. That means federal and state law can both apply. The records in a case can vary, and a lawyer can review what is available in your situation. Each one should be checked for accuracy, timing and what it leaves out.

Timestamps, Message Content and Sending Versus Receiving

Timestamps and message content can support or weaken a link to a particular person. They matter most when checked against the original data.

Compare timestamps with work schedules, location data and phone activity. Ask who had the device at each time. A mismatch can matter. Device clocks, time zones and delayed delivery can also shift the times shown, so check the original metadata.

Message content can reveal a lot. Ask whether the writing style fits the accused person. Ask whether the messages mention details only certain people would know. Ask whether the chat was between two people or shared among several.

Sending and receiving are different acts, and the statute does not use the word “receive.” Texas Penal Code § 43.26(a-1) defines the offense as a person knowingly or intentionally possessing visual material that contains a visual depiction of a child engaging in sexual conduct, or knowingly or intentionally accessing that material with intent to view it. Subdivision (a-1)(2) also requires that the person knows or should have known that the depiction is of a child younger than 18 years of age at the time the image of the child was made. Whether a charge applies depends on the statute and the conduct alleged, not on receipt alone. Under the Texas online offenses, the focus is on what the person did, such as communicating, distributing or soliciting.

Screenshots and exported conversations can leave out dates, context and the other participant. Compare every screenshot against the original message data before relying on it.

What a Defense Review Looks At

A defense review tests each element the state must prove against the device, account and message evidence. Reviewing a case often begins with the paperwork that formally accuses a person of an offense.

For possession offenses, the review looks at knowledge. Under Texas Penal Code § 43.26, the state must show that the person intentionally or knowingly possessed, or accessed with intent to view, visual material, and that the person knew or should have known the depiction was of a child younger than 18 years of age at the time the image of the child was made. Shared devices make that question more important.

The review also looks for gaps. Which records did the state not obtain? Do any records conflict? Who else had access? What did each statement say about who was using the device?

Collateral consequences matter too. A felony conviction can bring firearm restrictions under Texas law. See Texas Penal Code § 46.04. For more on that issue, read our guide on gun rights after an online sex crime charge.

No lawyer can say in advance how a case will end. A review explains your options based on the evidence in your case.

Talk Through Your Situation Before Anything Else Is Decided

If police have pointed to messages from your phone, computer or online account, and you aren’t sure who was using it, start with the facts. Write down who had access, when, and where the device was kept. Save the original messages and any account alerts you received.

Then talk it through with Barbieri Law Firm. Heather Barbieri and our team serve clients in Frisco, Texas. We will walk through the messages, device access and account records with you.

Barbieri Law Firm offers a free, confidential initial consultation with no obligation to continue. Call (972) 424-1902 or send your case details through our contact form.

Attorney responsible for this site: Heather Barbieri, Barbieri Law Firm, Frisco, Texas.