State v. Santos, 35,175

Law enforcement (ICAC Task Force) using Ares peer-to-peer network traced an IP address to Santos and downloaded videos from a shared folder; two videos were burned to disc and additional files were later forensically recovered.
Search of Santos’s home found Ares software, CCleaner, eight videos in the recycle bin, 531 filenames in the shared folder history, and child-pornography-related search terms in unallocated space.
Santos admitted installing Ares, searching for PTHC and the “Gracel Series,” downloading, viewing, and deleting child-pornography files; he claimed the downloads were for medical research and said he would delete files after viewing.
The district court dismissed distribution counts at the close of the State’s case; jury convicted Santos of one count of possession of child pornography (NMSA 1978, § 30-6A-3(A) (2007)).
Santos appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence that he intentionally possessed the files because he deleted them after viewing, and (2) the district court abused its discretion by allowing the State to play portions of the videos over his offer to stipulate they were child pornography.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of knowing/intentional possession and no abuse of discretion in admitting brief portions of the videos under Rules 11-401 and 11-403.

Issue	State's Argument	Santos's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: whether evidence proved Santos "intentionally possessed" child pornography	Santos downloaded, viewed, deleted files but the videos remained on his laptop (recycle bin) and forensic evidence plus his admissions support an inference of knowing possession	Deleting after viewing shows intent to get rid of files, not to possess them; watching is not itself illegal and deletion negates possession	Affirmed: substantial evidence (downloads, Ares use, recycle bin files, admissions) supported a finding of intentional/knowing possession
Admission of videos over stipulation: whether district court abused discretion by showing video clips despite Santos’s offer to stipulate they were child pornography	Video content was probative of intent and to rebut Santos’s medical-research claim; brief clips were relevant and not substantially outweighed by prejudice	Playing graphic videos was inflammatory and unnecessary because Santos offered to stipulate the content	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; brief portions were probative of intent and admissible under Rules 11-401/11-403; no fundamental-error review required

State v. Smith, 367 P.3d 420 (N.M. 2016) (sufficiency standard for conviction)
State v. Largo, 278 P.3d 532 (N.M. 2012) (definition of substantial evidence)
State v. Ballard, 276 P.3d 976 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (possession begins upon completion of download and continues while file remains accessible)
State v. Wasson, 964 P.2d 820 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (knowledge/intent generally a jury question)
United States v. Dobbs, 629 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2011) (cache-only images insufficient to prove knowing possession)
United States v. Bass, 411 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2005) (jury may infer knowledge where defendant attempted to delete images)
United States v. Haymond, 672 F.3d 948 (10th Cir. 2012) (peer-to-peer downloading, followed by deletion, supports knowing possession)
State v. Otto, 157 P.3d 8 (N.M. 2007) (State may present evidence beyond narrow issues conceded by defendant)
State v. Sena, 192 P.3d 1198 (N.M. 2008) (trial court discretion in balancing probative value against prejudice)