Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re J. C. L.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

March 26, 2014

In the Matter of J. C. L., a Youth.
v.
J. C. L., Appellant STATE OF OREGON, Respondent,

Argued and submitted March 13, 2013.

00356282. Petition Number J12566. Yamhill County Circuit Court. John L. Collins, Judge.

Alexander Freeman argued the cause for appellant. With him on the opening brief was Angela Sherbo. On the reply brief was Angela Sherbo.

Rebecca M. Johansen, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Schuman, Senior Judge.

OPINION

Page 741

[261 Or.App. 694] DUNCAN, P. J.

In this juvenile delinquency case, youth appeals from a judgment determining that he is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the criminal offenses of first-degree encouraging child sexual abuse, ORS 163.684(1)(a)(A) (2007), (Counts 1 and 3) and second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse, ORS 163.686 (2007) (Counts 2 and 4).[1] Youth advances four assignments of error. In his first and second assignments, he contends that the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of child pornography found on his computer, which was seized without a warrant from a computer repair person. In his third and fourth

Page 742

assignments, he contends that the juvenile court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal on the four offenses, asserting that, with respect to Counts 2 and 4, the state failed to prove that youth knowingly possessed the prohibited images, and that, with respect to Counts 1 and 3, it failed to prove that he knowingly possessed the images with the intent to duplicate or display them. For the reasons explained herein, we affirm the judgment.

We review the juvenile court's rulings for errors of law. We defer to the court's findings of historical fact if there is constitutionally sufficient evidence to support them, and in the absence of express findings, we resolve factual disputes in a manner consistent with the trial court's ultimate conclusions. State v. Hall, 339 Ore. 7, 10, 115 P.3d 908 (2005). Within those guidelines, we summarize the general facts from the juvenile court's findings and other record evidence. See State v. Guggenmos, 350 Ore. 243, 245, 253 P.3d 1042 (2011).

Youth was 16 years of age at the time of the relevant events. In March 2007, youth's uncle, Conahan, came to the attention of police when they linked him to the IP address of a computer that was downloading child pornography. In May 2007, police detective Elliott executed a search warrant at [261 Or.App. 695] Conahan's residence. Based on images found on Conahan's computers and thumb drives, Elliott arrested Conahan for possession of child pornography. Conahan made statements to police that led them to investigate youth.

Youth had a computer in his bedroom. When it needed repairs, he sought help from Dutton, a high school student with an informal computer repair business. On several occasions, Dutton had visited youth's home to repair his computer and saw Conahan at the house. In March 2007, Dutton took youth's computer to his own home to repair it. Again, in May 2007, Dutton took youth's computer to his home for repairs.

On May 23, 2007, two days after Elliott arrested Conahan, Elliott attempted unsuccessfully to contact youth. He then went to Dutton's house, where, without a warrant, he seized youth's computer and its hard drive.

Eight days later, police obtained a warrant to search youth's computer. Detective Wiltse found installed on youth's computer a software program called " Limewire," a " peer-to-peer" network that allows users to search the " shared" folders and files of Limewire users whose computers are also connected to the Internet and running Limewire. In a " shared" folder on youth's computer, Wiltse found images and videos of child pornography identical to the images and videos found on Conahan's thumb drive. The shared folders and files were marked " hidden," and they could not, in fact, be shared through Limewire. The state did not present evidence as to whether youth's computer was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.