top of page

Gruppe für gemeinsame Interessen

Öffentlich·87 Mitglieder

Nudist Family With Children Pictures Zip

In messages dated June 30, Eley offered to pay the victim in exchange for nude pictures. Court documents said the Delaware pastor paid the child for nude photos of herself with money stolen from the church.

nudist family with children pictures zip

For purposes of equal protection analysis, defendant was not similarly situated to defendants who were charged with other crimes against children and was not subject to disparate treatment because O.C.G.A. 16-12-100 criminalizes conduct involving all children under the age of 18 years, whereas other crimes against children specify a lower age threshold, and in certain instances, implicate only unmarried victims. Reed v. State, 264 Ga. App. 466, 448 S.E.2d 189 (1994).

Because the defendant never requested access to the materials seized from the defendant's home for the purpose of preparing for trial, wherein the defendant was charged with sexual exploitation of children, in violation of O.C.G.A. 16-12-100(b)(8), the defendant lacked standing to assert that O.C.G.A. 16-12-100(d) was unconstitutional due to the exemptions allowed therein; the defendant was unable to show that the statute adversely impacted the defendant's rights. Tennille v. State, 279 Ga. 884, 622 S.E.2d 346 (2005).

- Deputy sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity on the arrestee's 42 U.S.C. 1983 Fourth Amendment claim because the deputy sheriff had at least arguable probable cause to arrest the arrestee because the deputy sheriff applied for an arrest warrant for sexual exploitation of children, O.C.G.A. 16-12-100; when the totality of the circumstances was viewed objectively, a reasonable officer in the deputy sheriff's position could have believed that the deputy had probable cause to arrest the arrestee based on: (1) the investigations conducted by both the school technology specialists and the sheriff's office specialist; (2) the images found on the computers used by the arrestee; (3) an interview with the school technology staff; and (4) the doctor's statement that some of the individuals depicted in the images appeared to be under the age of eighteen years. Rockel v. Watkins, F. Supp. 2d (M.D. Ga. Nov. 24, 2009).

Trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a search warrant authorizing entry into the defendant's home because the affidavit submitted in support of the warrant provided a sufficient basis for the magistrate to make a practical, commonsense decision that there was a fair probability that evidence of sexual exploitation of children would be found at the defendant's residence; the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children forwarded the information it received from a security specialist employed by the host of the website to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI), and the affidavit of a special agent with the GBI set forth facts that showed both the reliability and basis of knowledge of the specialist. James v. State, 312 Ga. App. 130, 717 S.E.2d 713 (2011), cert. denied, No. S12C0347, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 227 (Ga. 2012).

- Trial court properly refused to merge a defendant's convictions as the offenses of aggravated child molestation and sexual exploitation of children were separate legal offenses and did not merge as a matter of law; the offenses did not merge as a matter of fact as: (1) the defendant was charged with five separate acts of aggravated child molestation, each of which was based on different facts; (2) the 35 convictions of sexual exploitation of children were based on the distinct actions of the defendant creating 32 separate sexually explicit photographic or video images and distributing three other sexually explicit images over the Internet; and (3) the defendant's creation of sexually explicit images of several of the sex acts that constituted the basis for the aggravated child molestation charges were separate actions warranting a separate charge and conviction as the offenses of aggravated child molestation were completed separately and independently of the defendant photographing or videotaping the acts. Walthall v. State, 281 Ga. App. 434, 636 S.E.2d 126 (2006).

- Surreptitious photos of the genitals of clothed children, visible due to the angle of the camera and the children's open legs, was not within the precise language of O.C.G.A. 16-12-100(b)(5). Craft v. State, 252 Ga. App. 834, 558 S.E.2d 18 (2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1025, 123 S. Ct. 537, 154 L. Ed. 2d 437 (2002).

- Evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of five counts of sexual exploitation of children beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence was more than sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis that someone other than the defendant possessed a USB drive when the defendant stayed at a hotel since a forensic computer specialist testified that the date and time imprinted on a photograph taken from a digital camera was recorded from the digital camera's date and time feature; given the specialist's testimony, coupled with the fact that the defendant possessed several computers, a digital camera, and another USB drive in the defendant's home in Arkansas, a rational trier of fact could find that the defendant took defendant's own photograph from the defendant's home in Arkansas with the defendant's digital camera, saved those photographs to the USB drive, took the USB drive with the defendant to Georgia, where the defendant stayed at the hotel, and inadvertently left the USB drive on the fifth floor of the hotel, and the jury could also conclude that the defendant knowingly possessed material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in light of evidence that sexually explicit images of children were saved to the USB drive within seconds of the time two photographs of the defendant were saved to such drive. Hunt v. State, 303 Ga. App. 855, 695 S.E.2d 53 (2010).

- Indictment charging defendant with attempted sexual exploitation of children properly alleged that defendant took a substantial step toward the commission of the crime by making arrangements to meet the victim for the purpose of violating the statute and by proceeding to the meeting place. Dennard v. State, 243 Ga. App. 868, 534 S.E.2d 182 (2000).

Trial court did not err in concluding that the victim, who subsequently married the defendant, could be compelled to testify against the defendant with regard to the charge of sexual exploitation of children because that charge qualified as a crime against the person of a minor based upon the public policy expressed in former O.C.G.A. 24-9-23(b) (see now O.C.G.A. 24-5-503), the particular pictures involved in the case, and the specific subsection with which the defendant was charged, O.C.G.A. 16-12-100(b)(8); the pictures in the defendant's possession showed the victim personally engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Peck v. State, 300 Ga. App. 375, 685 S.E.2d 367 (2009).

- Defendants' convictions of sexual exploitation of children were supported by evidence that they had taken turns photographing each other as they engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim, who was under 18 years of age at the time, and it was not necessary for the state either to produce the photographs in question or otherwise to prove that the camera had been working properly. Moua v. State, 200 Ga. App. 49, 406 S.E.2d 557 (1991).

Defendant was properly convicted of four counts of sexual exploitation of children where there was evidence that defendant's minor daughter had shaved her pubic area and the position of her body in photographs presented a question for jury determination as to whether the photographs depicted a lewd exhibition of the minor's pubic area. These facts constituted adequate evidence to present for jury determination whether defendant's exhibition of photographs was accomplished with intent to sell. Unden v. State, 218 Ga. App. 463, 462 S.E.2d 408 (1995).

Defendant's convictions for aggravated child molestation and sexual exploitation of children were supported by the evidence based on the testimony of two minor victims that the victims engaged in numerous acts of oral and anal sex with the defendant, their identification of themselves in numerous photographs and several videos taken from the defendant's computer files, which depicted the victims engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and the sexually explicit photographs and video recordings. Walthall v. State, 281 Ga. App. 434, 636 S.E.2d 126 (2006).

Evidence was sufficient to convict a defendant of sexually exploiting children (O.C.G.A. 16-12-100(b)(8)) as pictures of the defendant and minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct were on a compact disk found in a vehicle in which the defendant had been riding, and some of the same pornographic images were on a computer disk found in the defendant's home. Thus, the state did not rely solely on the defendant's ownership of the home to prove possession of the pornography. Clewis v. State, 293 Ga. App. 412, 667 S.E.2d 158 (2008).

Evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of 20 counts of sexual exploitation of children because the defendant knowingly possessed or controlled pornographic images of children as the child pornography images found in the cache folder on the defendant's computer had all been intentionally accessed on the date the officer observed the defendant with the computer; the officer observed the images on the defendant's computer and watched as the defendant attempted to close and minimize the pornographic images of children; and the images were not generated in a passive way in pop-up windows. Sorg v. State, 324 Ga. App. 595, 751 S.E.2d 196 (2013).

Evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of 15 counts of sexual exploitation of children based on the child pornography found on a girlfriend's computer because a Georgia Bureau of Investigation expert in computer forensics explained that there was no evidence that a virus had downloaded any of the illegal files, and that there was no evidence that anyone had hacked into the computer; the defendant's mother, the defendant's girlfriend, and the defendant's girlfriend's mother and brothers testified that they did not download the illegal files onto the computer; and the downloads began just one month after the defendant moved in with the girlfriend and only on days when the defendant was not incarcerated. Beaver v. State, 330 Ga. App. 496, 767 S.E.2d 503 (2014).


Willkommen in der Gruppe! Hier können Sie sich mit anderen M...
bottom of page