State v. Inzitari, 351 Conn. 86

Michael Inzitari was convicted of first-degree possession of child pornography under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-196d(a)(1), which requires possession of 50 or more images constituting child pornography.
Police found 57 images on Inzitari's cell phone, some depicting nude children; Inzitari challenged 13 images as protected expression, arguing they depicted only nudity, not sexually explicit conduct.
The central legal question was whether these 13 images met the statutory definition of "sexually explicit conduct," particularly as "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area."
The trial court instructed the jury it could consider the six Dost factors (a federal test for lascivious exhibition), including whether images are intended to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
Inzitari appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, improper jury instructions (Dost factors), lack of specific unanimity instruction, and improper admission of certain exhibits.
The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case following transfer, affirming the conviction.

Issue	Inzitari's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence (definition of child pornography)	13 images only show nudity, not "sexually explicit conduct"; nudity alone is protected by the First Amendment	Images meet definition via "lascivious exhibition"; jury could find at least 50 images met statutory standard	Evidence sufficient; at least 11 of 13 disputed images depict lascivious exhibition, so threshold is met
Jury instruction on Dost factors	Use of Dost factors, especially 6th (sexual response of viewer), is improper and confuses jury	Dost factors are helpful, jury should be able to consider all	First five Dost factors are relevant; 6th factor (sexual response) should not be used in possession cases, but no prejudice from instruction here
Requirement for jury unanimity on which images qualify	Jury must unanimously agree which 50 images are child porn and under which statutory subcategory	Not required; images and categories are means, not elements—general unanimity on guilt is enough	No unanimity instruction required; sufficient that jury unanimous on overall elements
Admission of file name exhibits from deleted images	Evidence is prejudicial and cumulative	Evidence is probative of knowledge/intent and counteracts defense claims of mistake/lack of knowledge	Properly admitted; probative value outweighed prejudice; court minimized risk of undue prejudice

Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (unanimity not required on means, only elements)
Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (unanimity on elements, not subsidiary facts or means)
Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (general verdict not set aside if sufficient evidence supports one valid ground even if other grounds not supported)
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (general verdict must be set aside if based on alternative ground that is unconstitutional)
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (independent appellate review in First Amendment cases)
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485 (appellate courts must review evidence to protect First Amendment rights)