Skip to main content

People v. Kent

Citations

  • 19 N.Y.3d 290
  • 970 N.E.2d 833

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • concluding that (1) “merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law” and (2
  • concluding that the defendant was properly convicted of promoting and possessing a video and certain images containing child pornography when the evidence established that the defendant had downloaded or saved that video and those images and then deleted them
  • noting that “[t]he exercise of dominion or control is necessarily knowing” (alteration, internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
  • noting that “[t]he exercise of dominion or 8 control is necessarily knowing” (alteration, internal quotation marks and citation 9 omitted)
  • noting that “[t]he exercise of dominion or 10 control is necessarily knowing” (alteration, internal quotation marks and citation 11 omitted)
  • discussing evidentiary issues involved with proving that images found in a computer’s cache were knowingly possessed by the user

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ciparick, Graffeo, Only, Smith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

30 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.