Zambrana v. State
2015 Del. LEXIS 319
| Del. | 2015Background
- Victim S.Z., a 15-year-old neighbor, was asked by 26-year-old Mark Zambrana to try on a shirt at his home and to remove her bra; Zambrana hid behind a shower curtain and watched her breasts.
- Zambrana admitted in a police interview and at trial that he spied on S.Z. to obtain sexual gratification and to create a mental image he would later use to masturbate.
- Zambrana was charged and convicted in Superior Court of two counts of Sexual Solicitation of a Child under 11 Del. C. § 1112A following a bench trial.
- On appeal he conceded the solicitation but argued § 1112A requires creation of a tangible “depiction” (e.g., photograph/video) of nudity for the statute to apply, and that his conduct produced no such tangible depiction.
- The State and the Court rejected that narrow reading; the Court interpreted “depiction” to include live presentations (and, per concurrence, potentially mental images), consistent with statutory structure and legislative purpose to protect children from predators.
- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “depiction” in the definition of a “prohibited sexual act” (11 Del. C. § 1100(7)(i)) requires a tangible recorded image | The State: statute should be read to criminalize solicitation to cause a child to engage in nudity for sexual gratification, including live presentations; legislative purpose protects children from predators | Zambrana: “depiction” means a physical representation (photo/video/other stored image); he did not create such a depiction, so conduct falls outside § 1100(7)(i) | Court: “depiction” includes live conduct (and concurrence endorses mental-image capture as reasonable); conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (U.S. Supreme Court recognized that “depictions” may include live performances in child pornography context)
- Bd. of Adjustment of Sussex County v. Verleysen, 36 A.3d 326 (Del. 2012) (Delaware standard: statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Spielberg v. State, 558 A.2d 291 (Del. 1989) (principles for searching legislative intent and statutory construction)
- Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (1995) (canon against interpreting statutes to render words redundant)