Michael Thomas Terlecki v. Commonwealth of Virginia
65 Va. App. 13
| Va. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Appellant Michael Terlecki was convicted after a bench trial in Fredericksburg of possession of child pornography under Va. Code § 18.2-374.1:1(A) and sentenced to three years, with part suspended.
- His then-girlfriend, Michelle Humphries, found ~20 pornographic image files in the laptop’s recycle bin in Aug. 2012 and again in May 2013; she described the images as clear photos of young teens (some pre-pubescent) engaged in sexual acts, and said they did not appear computer-generated.
- Appellant admitted to Humphries and later to Detective Carlos Reyes (in a recorded interview) that he viewed child pornography (describing ages 8–17 and sexual acts), and said he destroyed the laptop by throwing it in a dumpster in late June 2013.
- At trial the Commonwealth did not introduce the image files themselves; it relied on Humphries’s testimony and the recorded interview.
- Appellant moved to strike, arguing the Commonwealth failed to prove (1) the images depicted an actual, identifiable minor (as required by statute), (2) he possessed the images, and (3) the corpus delicti could not be established by his admissions. The trial court denied the motions; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Terlecki) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth proved the images depicted an identifiable minor | Humphries’s lay testimony that images were clear, looked human, not computer‑generated, plus appellant’s recorded admission describing ages and acts, suffice to show images depicted actual identifiable minors | Images were not admitted; without the files the Commonwealth couldn’t prove they depicted real persons rather than computer‑generated figures or virtual children | Held: Evidence sufficient — Humphries’s testimony together with appellant’s admissions permitted a reasonable fact‑finder to find identifiable minors |
| Whether the Commonwealth proved appellant knowingly possessed the images | Appellant admitted using images for sexual gratification and promised to stop downloading; he destroyed the laptop — showing awareness, dominion, and control sufficient for constructive possession | Other roommates had access; evidence didn’t show appellant downloaded rather than merely viewed images online; thus possession not proven | Held: Evidence sufficient — admissions, discovery on his laptop, and destruction of the laptop established awareness and dominion (constructive possession) |
| Whether corpus delicti was established such that convictions could rest on extrajudicial statements | Even if appellant’s statements are only admissions (not full confession), Humphries’s independent testimony corroborates that a crime occurred, satisfying corpus delicti | Appellant argued his interview was only an admission (not confession) and could not alone establish the corpus delicti | Held: Corpus delicti satisfied — slight corroboration required was provided by Humphries’s testimony and the recorded interview |
Key Cases Cited
- Kromer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 812, 613 S.E.2d 871 (Va. Ct. App.) (defines possession of digital images under constructive‑possession principles)
- Spencer v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 275, 384 S.E.2d 775 (Va.) (standard of appellate review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard that appellate court asks whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Allen v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 68, 752 S.E.2d 856 (Va.) (explains corpus delicti rule requires corroboration of extrajudicial confessions)
- United States v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (factfinder may determine whether images depict real children by viewing them)
- United States v. Slanina, 359 F.3d 356 (5th Cir.) (no requirement for expert testimony to show images depict real children when jury views images)