Viewing Child Porn Illegal Virginia Fairfax Lawyers Misdemeanor Violation Code 18.2-374.1

Illegal Viewing Of Child Porn in Virginia Defense – Virginia Lawyers

There are many different penalties for Illegal Viewing Of Child Porn in Virginia in Virginia.

If you have been charged with Illegal Viewing Of Child Porn in Virginia, contact our firm immediately for help.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Richmond Virginia Beach Loudoun Prince William Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.

Viewing Child Porn Illegal Virginia Fairfax Lawyers

Viewing Child Porn Illegal Virginia Fairfax Lawyers

Illegal Viewing Of Child Porn Defense In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Harrison v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The defendant was convicted of 15 counts of misdemeanor possession of child pornography in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1. Defendant appealed. Defendant argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to convict him of illegal possession of child pornography. Specifically, he contended that the Commonwealth failed to prove he knowingly possessed the images contained within the computer. Defendant also alleged that the images were “hidden” in the computer.

If you are facing a Criminal case in Fairfax, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • In order to convict a person of possession of child pornography, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual knowingly possessed sexually explicit visual material utilizing or having as a subject a person less than 18 years. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1: 1.
  • Where a defendant continues viewing child porn knowing that the pornography is being saved, if only temporarily, on his computer, his possession is voluntary.
  • When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, the appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. The trial court’s judgment will not be set aside unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Under this standard, a reviewing court does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It asks instead whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the appellate court does not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact even if its opinion were to differ.
  • In order to convict a person of illegal possession of contraband, proof of actual possession is not required; proof of constructive possession will suffice. To support a conviction based upon constructive possession, the Commonwealth must point to evidence of acts, statements, or conduct of the accused or other facts or circumstances which tend to show that the defendant was aware of both the presence and character of the contraband and that it was subject to his dominion and control. Ownership or occupancy of the premises on which the contraband was found is a circumstance probative of possession.
  • Circumstantial evidence is as competent and is entitled to as much weight as direct evidence, provided it is sufficiently convincing to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. The Commonwealth is not required to prove that there is no possibility that someone else may have planted, discarded, abandoned or placed the contraband where the contraband is discovered. To resolve the issue, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances established by the evidence.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Richmond Virginia Beach Loudoun Prince William Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.

Illegal Viewing Of Child Porn Defense In Virginia.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Article written by A Sris
Click to Chat

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Show Comments

Comments are closed.