Tecklenburg v. Appellate Division of Superior Court

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence established that defendant possessed child pornography images by knowingly viewing images online
• distinguishing the viewing of child pornography from the knowing possession and control of images of child pornography
• distinguishing California’s statute, which criminalized “knowing[ ] possess[ion] or control[ ] [of] any matter, representation of information, data, or image . . .” (emphasis omitted
• “[T]he [Internet] cache evidenced defendant’s knowing, possession or control of the images. There was no need for additional evidence that defendant was aware of the [tagged image file format] or cache in order for the defendant to have violated [the child pornography statute].”
• distinguishing California’s statute, which criminalized “knowing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).