Facts: A jury convicted Mr. Marsh of a slew of charges
relating to sexual assault on a child and possession of child pornography. A
prosecution expert opined that the ‘AOL cache’ contained 17 images of child
porn. However, the defense claimed
that only a person with specialized knowledge could “know” what images the
cache contained. If the Court of Appeals found the evidence insufficient for
the 17 images, then the class 4-felony possession of child pornography would be
vacated.
Issue: Whether the cache of a computer provides
sufficient evidence that the person knowingly possessed child porn?
Held: Yes
Reasoning:
The Court found the cache issue
was one of first impression in Colorado.
However, the Court simply went along with the prosecution’s expert. The
prosecution expert opined that if the images remained in the cache of the
computer, then someone previously opened and viewed those images on the
computer. Further, the Court cited the prosecution expert’s testimony that 3 of
the images in the cache matched the images on the hard drive that were
previously deleted. Thus, Court of Appeals found the jury permissibly inferred
that the someone who possessed the child pornography was Mr. Marsh. Lastly, the
Court addressed a multitude of other issues, but found no error,
cumulative or otherwise.
Link to People v. Marsh here
Link to People v. Marsh here
No comments:
Post a Comment