State of New Jersey v. James A. Simmons, A-3539-22

Defendant James Simmons was convicted by a jury in New Jersey of second- and third-degree child endangerment for possessing, viewing, maintaining, and storing child sexual exploitation material (CSEAM) using a file-sharing program.
The conviction followed an investigation where more than 100 items of child pornography were found on defendant’s electronic devices, with evidence including graphic video titles and file names linked to his username.
Simmons argued that the files belonged to his deceased son, asserting he transferred the files to his own devices to investigate his son's suicide and claimed he never viewed the content.
On appeal, Simmons challenged the constitutionality of the child endangerment statute (for lack of a scienter requirement as to the age of the victims), the admission of lay testimony about technical computer issues, and his sentencing based on his refusal to accept guilt.
The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions and sentence, finding no reversible error in any of Simmons' claims.

Issue	Appellant’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Constitutionality of Statute’s Scienter Requirement	Statute violates free speech/due process protections by not requiring knowledge of victim’s age; should allow mistake-of-age defense	Statute need not include knowledge of victim’s age for strict liability; targets unprotected speech (child porn); clear legislative intent	Statute is constitutional; no scienter as to age required; First Amendment not violated
Admission of Lay Testimony on Technical Evidence	Fact witnesses gave technical testimony beyond juror understanding; should have required expert qualification/instruction	Witnesses testified as fact witnesses based on their training and experience; any error was harmless due to witnesses’ qualifications	Testimony admissible as fact (or harmless if expert); witnesses’ qualifications ample
Sentencing—Claims of Innocence as Aggravator	Sentencing court erred by treating defendant’s claim of innocence as aggravating factor	Sentencing was based on risk of reoffense, lack of remorse, and other statutorily supported factors	No abuse; sentence within discretion, aggravating factors supported by record

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (child pornography is categorically unprotected under First Amendment)
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (differentiating between protected and unprotected depictions in child pornography law)
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990) (states may ban possession/viewing of child pornography in the home)
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (mens rea applies to knowledge of age in federal child pornography statutes)
State v. Perez, 177 N.J. 540 (2003) (child endangerment does not require proof defendant knew victim was underage)
State v. Maldonado, 137 N.J. 536 (1994) (strict liability can be justified for serious criminal offenses if there is a rational basis)
State v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438 (2011) (distinguishing between fact and expert testimony)