Williams deals with whether Georgia's child pornography statute considers each individual image possessed a separate violation, or whether "the statute instead criminalizes a course of conduct," such that a defendant may only be charged with a single count of possession regardless of the number of images involved. See OCGA § 16-12-100(b)(8).
The trial court dismissed 46 separate counts of possession of child pornography against Williams, holding that the legislature's use of the phrase "any material" meant that " 'a simultaneous possession of multiple pornographic images, in a single location, on a specific day' was intended to constitute a single act." See State v. Williams, 347 Ga. App. 183 (2018).
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding "paragraph (b)(8) criminalizes each individual act of possessing or controlling an image depicting child pornography." Id. at 186. Writing for the Court, Judge Rickman reasoned that the use of the word "any" throughout the statute suggests a lack of restriction on scope. Section (b)(8)'s reference to "any material," qualified by the phrase "a minor or a portion of a minor's body," indicates that each depiction of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct is a separate harm to the child, and therefore "each illicit image" is itself "an independent abuse of the child victim, and signifies precisely the type of harm [the statute] seeks to prevent." Id. In context, Judge Rickman concluded, "it would make little sense to conclude that one who possesses vast amounts of child pornography is entitled to a volume discount when it comes to prosecution and sentencing." Id. at 186-187.
The case will be added to the August oral argument calendar.
Referenced
- Order Granting Certiorari, https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/s19c0125.pdf
- OCGA § 16-12-100(b)(8) ("It is unlawful for any person knowingly to possess or control any material which depicts a minor or a portion of a minor's body engaged in any sexually explicit conduct.")
Denied
S18C1630. RAYONIER FOREST RESOURCES, LP et al. v. THOMAS et al. (A18A0662)
S18C1631. RAYONIER FOREST RESOURCES, LP et al. v. CLINCH COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS (A18A0663)
S18C1633. LA FAMIGLIA FAMILY TRUST et al. v. EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C. (A18A0682)
S18C1643. AGNES SCOTT COLLEGE, INC. v. HARTLEY (A18A0084)
S18C1648. GEORGIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. WOODRUM et al. (A18A0596)
S18C1650. BAGGETT v. THE STATE (A18A0637)
S19C0009. PAUL v. PETS BKG, LLC d/b/a PETLAND KENNESAW (A18A0194)
S19C0010. LOWERY v. THE STATE (A18A0177)
S19C0014. OTOH v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (A18D0409)
S19C0017. HILL v. THE STATE (A18A0527)
S19C0033. OTOH v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES et al. (A18D0410)
S19C0037. HENDERSON v. THE STATE (A18A1128)
S19C0049. FUTRAL v. THE STATE (A18A1287)
S19C0050. ROGERS v. CHATHAM COUNTY (A18D0339)
S19C0056. JEFFRESS v. THE STATE (A18D0531)
S19C0062. ZEIGLER v. THE STATE (A18A1625)
S19C0063. BROWN v. THE STATE (A18A1267)
S19C0073. GRIMES v. THE STATE (A18A1283)
S19C0075. JOYNER v. THE STATE (A18A1294)
S19C0085. GOODRICH v. RIDGEVIEW INSTITUTE, INC. (A18A1085)
S19C0086. WARD v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (A19D0009)
S19C0096. SIMMONS v. SIMMONS (A18D0511)
S19C0110. ALMANZA-YERENA v. THE STATE (A18A1222)
S19C0121. AMC MARINE, INC. v. KICKLIGHTER (A18A1771)
S19C0124. TOMLINSON v. THE STATE (A19A0026)
S19C0136. JOHNSON v. THE STATE (A18A1921)
S19C0171. BANKS v. THE STATE (A19D0040)
S19C0175. LEONARD v. THE STATE (A18A1833)
S19C0181. WATERS et al. v. RIDLEY et al. (A18A1126)
S19C0200. REDFORD v. DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES (A18D0556)
S19C0214. GRAY v. THE STATE (A18A1107)
S19C0283. ACREE v. THE STATE (A19D0083)
S19C0357. ACREE V. WILLIAMS et al. (A19A0185)
No comments:
Post a Comment