Sorg v. State
324 Ga. App. 595
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Carl Sorg was observed at 11:30 p.m. in his car at a Wendy’s using a laptop; an officer illuminated the interior and, from outside, saw pornographic images on the screen.
- The officer initially saw apparent adult images, summoned backup, and then observed Sorg minimizing or closing windows when other officers arrived.
- An officer watching through the window observed images of children (underdeveloped breasts, lack of pubic hair); Sorg consented to a vehicle search and the laptop was seized.
- A responding officer with computer expertise found 21 minimized windows with separate URLs; opened windows showed naked children. Files were time-stamped the same date (Oct. 22, 2009).
- Sorg claimed the images were unintentional pop-ups and could not reproduce the sequence; a forensic expert testified the images were not pop-ups and required user action to appear.
- Sorg was indicted on 20 counts of sexual exploitation of children; the trial court denied his motion for a new trial and he appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of possession or control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove "knowingly possess or control" child pornography | Prosecution: viewing by officer, minimized windows, time-stamped files, URLs, and expert testimony show intentional access and control | Sorg: images were involuntary pop-ups; cache evidence insufficient to prove awareness or control | Affirmed: evidence was sufficient under Jackson to show Sorg knowingly possessed/controlled the images |
| Applicability of Barton precedent on cache files | Prosecution: facts distinguishable from Barton because images were intentionally accessed that night and observed on screen | Sorg: Barton requires reversal when cache storage alone shows no awareness | Court: Barton inapplicable — here active viewing/minimizing and timestamps show intentional access |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickerson v. State, 304 Ga. App. 762 (appellate sufficiency standard; view evidence for verdict)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (governs sufficiency of evidence standard for criminal convictions)
- Rankin v. State, 278 Ga. 704 (application of Jackson standard)
- Barton v. State, 286 Ga. App. 49 (cache-only child pornography holdings distinguished)
- Haynes v. State, 317 Ga. App. 400 (sufficiency where jury could find intentional access to cached images)