321 A.3d 697
Md.2024Background
- In June 2021, Roseberline Turenne, an 18‑year‑old daycare aide, had eight photographs on her phone showing very young girls’ naked genitals/pubic areas; none showed faces or sexual contact. Photos dated Feb–Apr 2021; most taken late afternoon or evening, several in the center’s bathroom/changing table area.
- A coworker discovered the images while viewing adult pornography on Turenne’s phone and reported them; Turenne initially lied about the images, later admitted she took them, and told investigators she took them “for no reason” and meant to delete them.
- At trial Turenne testified she photographed the children to document diaper rashes; the State argued she took and retained the photos for sexual gratification and charged her with eight counts each of child sexual abuse (CR §3‑602(b)(1)), production of child pornography (CR §11‑207(a)(1)), and possession of child pornography (CR §11‑208(b)(2)).
- The jury convicted on all counts; the circuit court imposed lengthy consecutive sentences totaling an aggregate term (with much suspended). The Appellate Court affirmed; the Maryland Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to sufficiency and the proper test for "lascivious exhibition."
- The Supreme Court (majority) affirmed: (1) evidence was sufficient to support sexual‑abuse convictions under the exploitation theory (benefit = sexual gratification); and (2) adopted a "content‑plus‑context" test for whether an image is a "lascivious exhibition," holding the eight photos were objectively sexual and thus supported production/possession convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Turenne) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence sufficed to prove sexual exploitation under CR §3‑602(b)(1) | Photos alone do not show sexual gratification; she took photos to document diaper rashes; exclude evidence about her sexual orientation and adult pornography. | Photos’ content (genitals focused, faces omitted, some poses), timing/setting (bathroom, end of day), lies, and surrounding adult pornography support inference she took them for sexual gratification. | Affirmed: circumstantial content+context permitted a rational juror to find sexual exploitation (benefit = sexual gratification). |
| Appropriate test for "lascivious exhibition" under child‑pornography statutes | Adopt an objective, four‑corners test (e.g., Hillie): image must connote sexual desire/activity; do not consider extrinsic context. | Adopt content‑plus‑context allowing consideration of image content plus circumstances directly related to the exhibition (but require objective sexual character). | Adopted content‑plus‑context test: consider image contents and contextual circumstances directly related to exhibition; determine whether image is objectively sexual. |
| Role of adult pornography / defendant’s sexual orientation in assessing sufficiency | Such evidence is prejudicial and irrelevant; without it prosecution fails to prove sexual intent/that images were pornographic. | Adult pornography and orientation are probative (how images were found; may support inferences about gratification/intent). | Majority: such evidence may be relevant but not necessary here; sufficiency stands without resolving the evidentiary significance of adult pornography/orientation. |
| Whether the eight photos were "lascivious exhibitions" (production/possession) | Photos show mere nudity/diaper changes, not lasciviousness; contextual evidence does not render them objectively sexual. | Photos focused on genitals, omitted faces, used poses resembling sexualized framing; combined with context a jury could find them objectively sexual. | Affirmed: applying content‑plus‑context, a rational juror could find the photos objectively sexual and thus lascivious. |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1982) (child pornography can be regulated beyond obscenity due to State interests)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1973) (obscenity test for adult pornography)
- United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986) (Dost factors for determining lasciviousness)
- United States v. Brown, 579 F.3d 672 (6th Cir. 2009) ("limited context" approach permitting context directly related to taking)
- United States v. Hillie, 39 F.4th 674 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (advocated four‑corners, desire/activity‑connoting standard)
- United States v. Courtade, 929 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2019) (objective, contents‑alone analysis sufficed where video showed deception/manipulation)
- State v. Krikstan, 483 Md. 43 (Md. 2023) (review standard and expansive view of sexual exploitation)
- Scriber v. State, 236 Md. App. 332 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2018) (applied content‑plus‑context to photos for sexual exploitation)
- Bible v. State, 411 Md. 138 (Md. 2009) (on sufficiency in sexual‑contact context; distinguished)