State of West Virginia v. Daniel Beck, 828 S.E.2d 821

Defendant Daniel Beck was indicted for possession of child pornography under W. Va. Code § 61-8C-3(a) based on images recovered from temporary Internet cache files on his laptop.
A circuit court certified the question whether mere possession of a laptop with cache files showing minors in sexually explicit conduct, absent evidence of when/where the cache entries were created or accessed, suffices to prove the defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed the material; the circuit court answered "No."
At a certification hearing the State’s cyber-forensics expert (stipulated as an expert) explained that browsers automatically cache images when pages are viewed, users do not intentionally create cache entries, and specialized forensic tools are required to extract viewable images from caches.
The Supreme Court declined to answer the original fact-dependent certified question as advisory, but reformulated it to ask whether images in temporary Internet cache files may be considered by a jury as evidence of a § 61-8C-3(a) violation.
The Court held cached images may be treated in two ways: (1) as contraband (for constructive possession) if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant knew of the cached images and exercised dominion and control; or (2) as circumstantial/evidentiary proof of a prior violation if the State cannot prove knowing dominion and control.
The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that legal holding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether cached images alone establish knowing possession under § 61-8C-3(a)	State: cached images on defendant's computer are the prohibited material and can support possession charges	Beck: mere presence of images in cache does not prove knowledge, timing, or access; browser auto-caches images	No—mere presence is insufficient; conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of knowledge and dominion/control for constructive possession
Whether cached images may be treated as contraband for constructive possession	State: cache copies are like stored files (file cabinet analogy) and can be the contraband	Beck: cache entries are automatic and may exist without user awareness, so not necessarily contraband	Yes, cached images can be contraband if State proves knowledge and dominion/control beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether cached images may be used as circumstantial evidence of past possession/access	State: even if present possession not proved, caches can show prior viewing or access	Beck: caches without temporal or access evidence are unreliable to prove prior knowing possession	Yes, if the State cannot prove present possession, cached images may still be used as circumstantial evidence of a prior violation

State v. Cummings, 220 W. Va. 433, 647 S.E.2d 869 (W. Va. 2007) (defining constructive possession: must prove knowledge and dominion/control)
United States v. Dobbs, 629 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2011) (presence of images in cache does not alone demonstrate knowing receipt/possession)
New v. State, 327 Ga. App. 87, 755 S.E.2d 568 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) (cached shadow copies can be circumstantial evidence of prior knowing possession)
State v. Linson, 896 N.W.2d 656 (S.D. 2017) (cached images generally are evidence of possession rather than literal contraband)
State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (W. Va. 1995) (no qualitative legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence; standard is beyond a reasonable doubt)