AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, a pediatrician awaiting licensure in New Mexico, was investigated for possession of child pornography after an undercover online operation by the New Mexico Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force traced file-sharing activity to his IP address. Upon executing a search warrant at his residence, law enforcement discovered child pornographic materials on his computer. The Defendant admitted to downloading and viewing these materials for "research purposes" related to his medical profession, claiming he would delete the files shortly after viewing. He was subsequently charged and convicted of one count of sexual exploitation of children (possession).

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Charles W. Brown, District Judge: Conviction of one count of sexual exploitation of children (possession).
• Certiorari Denied, October 19, 2017, No. S-1-SC-36563.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for intentional possession of child pornography, contending that the deletion of the materials indicated a lack of intent to possess. Additionally, the Appellant challenged the district court's decision to allow the jury to view the video evidence, offering instead to stipulate that the material was child pornography.
• Appellee: Contended that the evidence was sufficient for a conviction, emphasizing that the materials were found on the Defendant's laptop and were under his control. The Appellee also argued that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the jury to view the video evidence, despite the Defendant's offer to stipulate.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the Defendant “intentionally possessed” child pornography.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing the State to show video evidence to the jury after the Defendant offered to stipulate that the material proposed to be shown was child pornography.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's conviction of the Defendant for one count of sexual exploitation of children (possession).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges James J. Wechsler and Jonathan B. Sutin concurring, held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Court reasoned that by downloading, viewing, and deleting the videos, the Defendant exercised control over them, thus constituting possession. The Court also found that the Defendant's intent to delete the materials did not negate the fact of possession. Regarding the video evidence, the Court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing it to be shown to the jury, noting the relevance of the videos to the Defendant's intent and the charges against him. The Court emphasized that the probative value of showing the videos outweighed any potential prejudice, especially given the Defendant's claim of viewing the materials for research purposes (paras 1-30).