People v. James D. Kent
New York Court of Appeals
970 N.E.2d 833 (2012)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
While responding to a complaint by professor James Kent (defendant) about his malfunctioning computer, a college employee discovered a folder containing photographs of scantily clad young girls in suggestive poses. The hard drive was submitted to the police. Images from child-pornography websites, including “School Backyard,” were found in the cache—temporary Internet files automatically stored on the user’s computer when websites are visited. The computer’s unallocated space—comprising material that had been downloaded, saved, and deleted and was no longer accessible to Kent—contained child-pornography photographs and a video saved under the name “Arina.” Kent was convicted of promoting and possessing sexual performances by a child. The counts related to the procurement and possession of the “School Backyard” webpage, the procurement and possession of the “Arina” video, and the possession of the images in the unallocated space. There was no evidence that Kent was aware of his computer’s cache function or that the files were in the cache. The New York Appellate Division affirmed Kent’s convictions, holding that the cache was evidence that Kent had possessed the materials when he viewed them. On appeal, Kent argued that merely accessing and displaying website images did not constitute promotion of child pornography; only the possession of tangible items was unlawful; and absent proof he was aware of his computers’ cache function, he could not have knowingly possessed items stored in the cache.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ciparick, J.)
Concurrence (Smith, J.)
Concurrence (Graffeo, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.