State v. Madison Hansen

Syllabus

The defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction of one count of possession of child pornography, following a bench trial in the Superior Court. The defendant asserted that the conviction violated his right to free speech because the images he possessed did not constitute child pornography within the meaning of G.L. 1956 § 11-9-1.3. In following an independent, de novo review, the Supreme Court concluded that the images fit within the meaning of the statute prohibiting the possession of child pornography. The Supreme Court concluded that the intent of the Legislature in enacting the statute, specifically to safeguard the well-being of children by preventing sexual exploitation, gives meaning to the phrase \lascivious exhibition.\ The Supreme Court declined to adopt the Dost factors set forth in United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986). However, in reviewing the factors and considering the purpose of the statute, the Supreme Court concluded that each image constituted a lascivious exhibition of the pubic area of each minor subject therein, within the meaning of § 11-9-1.3(c)(6)(v), and, thus, was considered child pornography. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment of conviction.