State v. Becnel, 220 So. 3d 27

Shawn Becnel was charged with possession of pornography involving juveniles; a jury convicted him of attempted possession and sentenced him to 10 years at hard labor.
Police executed a search warrant at Becnel’s home and seized two laptops from the living room where he slept; only Becnel and his mother lived there.
Forensic exam of one laptop revealed 3,542 suspected child‑pornography images, including 486 KFF‑alert files confirmed previously as images of children under 17.
Most images were recovered from deleted areas (recycle bin and unallocated space); torrent software was present; no viruses were found.
The jury viewed the images; expert testimony authenticated the 486 KFF files as juvenile pornographic images; Becnel argued lack of proof of possession and that images required forensic software to view.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict of attempted possession	State: laptop belonged to defendant; located where he slept; mother had only limited use; forensic evidence showed intentional downloading and deleted files; jury could find constructive possession and knowledge	Becnel: joint residence; mother also had access; no direct proof he used the computer; most images were only accessible via forensic tools; no expert age testimony for most images	Conviction affirmed — evidence (ownership, access, deleted files, torrent presence, KFF alerts) supported finding of constructive possession and the jury’s determination of age for images was proper
Admissibility of testimony that police were investigating indecent behavior with juveniles (other‑crimes evidence)	State: testimony explained why officers were at the house and why the search warrant was executed (res gestae / narrative completeness)	Becnel: naming the prior charge was irrelevant, prejudicial, and should have been excluded under La. Code Evid. arts. 403 and 404(B)(1)	Even if admission was error, it was harmless — overwhelming evidence of possession made any prejudice surely unattributable to the mention of the prior charge

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (due process sufficiency standard for convictions)
United States v. Moreland, 665 F.3d 137 (5th Cir.) (joint access to home computers insufficient without additional proof of dominion/control)
State v. Sandifer, 679 So.2d 1324 (La.) (actual and constructive possession explained)
State v. Cinel, 646 So.2d 309 (La.) (child pornography is a general intent crime)
State v. Odenbaugh, 82 So.3d 215 (La.) (res gestae / narrative completeness exception to other‑crimes exclusion)
State v. Pigford, 922 So.2d 517 (La.) (guilty knowledge may be inferred from circumstances)
State v. Toups, 833 So.2d 910 (La.) (mere presence or association insufficient for constructive possession)