Intent in Child Pornography Cases: How “Parental Concern” Failed as a Defense in a Florida Child Pornography Case

After being convicted of child pornography, defendants often look for ways to contest the verdict. In one particular case, the defendant contested his conviction by claiming that he filmed his underage daughter out of “parental concern.” However, Florida courts take intent very seriously in child pornography prosecutions, and even when a defendant claims they were acting out of concern or a desire to “monitor” a minor’s behavior, the courts focus on the objective nature of the conduct and not the defendant’s personal justification. The decision in this case sheds light on the strict legal standards surrounding intent in Florida child pornography cases and demonstrates why such defenses are unlikely to succeed.

About the Case

In a recent case, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of a defendant, whom, for purposes of this article, we will refer to as D.D. The defendant was convicted of possessing a sexual performance by a child under Florida Statutes Section 827.071(5). D.D. had secretly recorded his 14-year-old daughter partially undressed and engaging in sexual acts in her bed. The video was seven minutes long and included zoomed-in images.

During the trial, the defendant requested a judgment of acquittal. His defense was that he filmed his daughter out of “parental concern” to look into her online sexual interactions, not for his own sexual gratification. He argued that the statute required evidence of “intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire,” which he denied possessing. The trial court denied his motion, the jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to prison and sex offender probation. D.D. appealed his conviction, and the appeals court affirmed his conviction.

D.D.’s appeal was based on a misunderstanding of the law. He claimed that his personal reason for filming his daughter negated the criminal intent required by the statute. The court quickly clarified this. According to Florida law, the crime of possessing a sexual performance by a child is defined as knowingly having or controlling any material that one is aware contains child pornography. The following definitions in the statute are vital:

• Child pornography refers to any image showing a minor engaged in sexual conduct.
• Sexual conduct encompasses masturbation or actual physical contact with certain body parts, including the breast, with the intention of arousing or satisfying the sexual desire of either party.

Importantly, the court made it clear that the intent element mentioned in the definition of “sexual conduct” relates to the actions depicted, not the reasons behind the possessor’s ownership. The jury’s job was to determine if the video showed the child involved in conduct with a sexual purpose. The jury concluded it did. Once the defendant had that recording, the crime was considered complete, and his personal reasons for making or keeping it didn’t really matter in terms of the legal requirements. On de novo review, the appellate court found that “competent substantial evidence” supported the verdict.

If you are facing a child pornography charge, it’s crucial to work with a skilled defense attorney with a clear understanding of the statutory definitions and intent requirements in these cases.

Contact an Orlando Sex Crime Lawyer

If you’re facing child pornography charges, contact our skilled Orlando sex crime lawyer at Joshi Law Firm, PA.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12969748745152386035&q=child+pornography&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10,325,326,327&as_ylo=2024