Child Pornography: - Center for Problem-Oriented Policing

pornography via Internet did not violate prohibition against possession of "film image" of child engaging in
sexual conduct).
319. TEX. PENAL CODE § 43.26(a).
320. TEX. PENAL CODE §43.26(f).
321. ALA. CODE § 13A-12-192(a).
322. COLO.REV. STAT. § 18-6-403.
323. ME.REV. STAT. tit. 17, § 2923.
324. ALASKA STAT.§ 11.61.125 (c).
325. Hudson v. State, 2000 WL 678999 (Fla. 2000). See also Wade v. State, 751 So.2d 669 (Fla. 2000)
(defendant only convicted of one count of possession with intent to promote based on multiple copies of
three different photographs during one search); State v. Parrella, 736 So.2d 94 (Fla. 1999) (defendant in
possession of four videotapes can only be prosecuted for one count of possession with intent to promote
because statute specifies "any" violative material rather than "a piece"; several items treated as one offense).
326. Crosby v. State, 575 So.2d 584 (Fla. 2000).
327. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 272, § 29C.
328. N.J. STAT. § 2C:24-4(b)(4)(b).
329. See the statutory chart beginning on page 59 for states with statutes prohibiting the "distribution of
material harmful to minors."
330. S.C. CODE§ 16-15-385.
331. OHIO REV. CODE §2907.311(B).
332. ME. REV. STAT. tit. 17, § 2913.
333. WIS. STAT. § 948.055.
334. KY.REV. STAT. §531.370.
335. PSINet,Inc. v. Chapman, 109F.Supp.2d6111 (2000).
336. State v. Maynard, 5 P.3d. 1142 (Or. App. 2000).
337. CAL.PENAL CODE § 288.2 (1999). See People v. Hsu, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 184, 82 Cal. App.4th 976 (2000). See
also State v. Weidner, 611 N. W.2d 684 (Wis. 2000) (statute prohibiting dissemination of harmful materials to
minors, without imposing burden on state to prove scienter, but in which scienter was made an affirmative
defense, found unconstitutional in regard to Internet and other non-face-to-face contact between defendant
and victim because would impose strict liability; would be virtually impossible for Internet users to meet
burden of proof of age); State v. Zarnke, 589N.W.2d370 (Wis. 1999) (statute placing burden of proving lack
of knowledge of child victim's age on defendant through affirmative defense is unconstitutional as applied to
activities that do not include some interaction between defendant and victim).
338. ALA. CODE § 13A-12-196. See Cole v. State, 721 So.2d 912 (Ala. 1999) (parent who produced pornographic
images of acts involving his minor son and two minor friends was properly charged with production
of obscene material containing visual depiction of a person younger than 17 years of age and permitting a
minor child to engage in production of obscene matter involving that child). See also chart beginning on
page 59 (statutory chart identifying states with some version of a parental knowledge or consent statute).
339. VT. STAT. §2823.
340. OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, § 1021.2.
341. IOWA CODE §728.14.
342. OR. REV. STAT. § 163.693.
343. ARIZ.REV. STAT. § 13-3509.
344. OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, § 1021.4.
345. See generally National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF CHILD
ABUSE (Susan Perlis Marx & Patricia Toth eds., 2d ed., American Prosecutors Research Institute 1993).
346. MINN. STAT. § 617.246 (6).
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY: THE CRIMINAL-JUSTICE-SYSTEM RESPONSE- 139