Skip to main content

State v. Barger

Citations

  • 247 P.3d 309
  • 349 Or. 553
  • 2011 Ore. LEXIS 3

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that to “possessf] or control[]” an image depicting child pornography within the meaning of ORS 163.686 requires something more than viewing the images on a computer
  • explaining that “none of the cases [from other jurisdictions] involves statutes that effectively announce that ‘viewing’ child pornography is not, by itself, unlawful”
  • ‘‘navigating to a website and bringing the images that the site contains to a computer screen— are not acts that the legislature intended to crimi- nalize’’
  • “[T]he word ‘possess’ encompasses two alternative ways of possessing property that this court traditionally has recognized: (1) physically controlling the property (‘actual’ possession) and (2
  • despite evidence that the defendant viewed child pornography over the Internet, there was no evidence that the defendant knew or understood that the files were downloaded into a temporary Internet file cache

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: De Muniz, Durham, Balmer, Kistler, Walters, Linder, Gillette

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

16 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.