Schmitt v. State
210 Md. App. 488
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Schmitt, living with Bethany G. and her children, faced counts for sexual abuse of a minor and various visual surveillance offenses.
- A memory card and a small hidden camera were found in Brooke G.’s bedroom; the video captured Brooke and Schmitt, including Schmitt masturbating.
- Brooke G. was 15 years old at the time the videos were created and viewed by Bethany G.
- The circuit court found sufficient evidence for count (1) sexual abuse of a minor and count (3) visual surveillance in a private area of a public or private place, but not for counts (2) and (4).
- The State’s evidence showed Schmitt placed and manipulated a hidden camera in Brooke’s bedroom and recorded sexual conduct for personal sexual gain.
- Brooke’s and Bethany’s testimonies and the video content formed the basis for exploitation-related liability under Md. Code (2002, as amended) § 3-602.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports sexual abuse of a minor conviction | Schmitt argues no exploitation or molestation proven | State contends broad interpretation of exploitation suffices | Yes; evidence supports exploitation and taking advantage of minor |
Key Cases Cited
- Brackins v. State, 84 Md.App. 157 (1990) (exploitative use of a child need not be shown by time of obtaining photo)
- Tate v. State, 182 Md.App. 114 (2008) (no specific intent required for sexual abuse of a minor)
- Tribbitt v. State, 403 Md. 638 (2008) (conduct need not be criminal; sexual abuse covers broad acts)
- Walker v. State, 206 Md.App. 13 (2012) (notes can constitute exploitation; not limited to overt acts)
- State v. Mayers, 417 Md. 449 (2010) (standard for sufficiency—defer to finder of fact; no reweighing)