People v. Hollins
2012 IL 112754
| Ill. | 2012Background
- Hollins, 32, was charged with three counts of child pornography for photographs taken of A.V., 17, while she was engaging in sexual activity with him; Hollins knew A.V. was under 18.
- Photos were taken between January 2008 and December 2008 using Hollins’ cellphone; he photographed himself and A.V. during sexual acts and sent images to her email.
- A stipulation and bench trial were conducted; Hollins admitted to taking the photos and knowing A.V. was under 18.
- Defendant was convicted on all three counts and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.
- On appeal, Hollins challenged the statute as applied to him on due process and equal protection grounds; the appellate court and circuit court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statute, as applied, violates due process | Hollins argues rational basis is not met; age differential creates unconstitutional overbreadth | Hollins contends the law punishes lawful private conduct and lacks fair notice | No due process violation; statute upholds rational basis |
| Whether the statute, as applied, violates equal protection | Hollins claims overinclusive treatment of adults filming legal activity with 17-year-olds | Law serves legitimate interest in protecting minors; no suspect class or fundamental right implicated | No equal protection violation; rational basis sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. _, 130 S. Ct. 1577 (2010) (U.S. 2010) (redefines First Amendment scope for depictions; requires speech integral to criminal conduct to be unprotected)
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (U.S. 2002) (virtual child pornography distinction; production harms under Ferber cited)
- New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1982) (establishes category of unprotected child pornography based on production harms)
- State v. Senters, 699 N.W.2d 810 (Neb. 2005) (rational basis upheld for prohibiting recording of under-18 sexual conduct despite consent)
- United States v. Bach, 400 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 2005) (recognizes rational basis defense for child-pornography statutes)
- People v. Madrigal, 241 Ill. 2d 463 (Ill. 2011) (discusses due process in identity-theft statute; distinct context but cited for rational basis analysis)