7.7-3 Importing Child Pornography -- § 53a-196c
Revised to December 1, 2007
The defendant is charged [in count __] with importing child pornography. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:
a person is guilty of importing child pornography when, with intent to promote child pornography, such person knowingly imports or causes to be imported into the state three or more visual depictions of child pornography of known content and character.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1 - Imported child
The first element is that the defendant imported child pornography or caused child pornography to be imported into the state. To "cause to be imported" means to engage in conduct that results in the importation of child pornography. "Into the state" means into the state of Connecticut.
"Child pornography" is any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, videotape, picture or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a person under sixteen years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct, provided whether the subject of a visual depiction was a person under sixteen years of age at the time the visual depiction was created is a question to be decided by the trier of fact.
"Sexually explicit conduct" means actual or simulated (A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital or oral-anal physical contact, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or with an artificial genital, (B) bestiality, (C) masturbation, (D) sadistic or masochistic abuse, or (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.
The person depicted must be under 16 years of age; that is, (he/she) must not yet have had (his/her) sixteenth birthday when the prohibited conduct is alleged to have taken place.
Furthermore, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person depicted was or is an actual, real person. For example, a "virtual" or computer-generated image would not fall into this category.
Element 2 - Knowingly
The second element is that (he/she) acted knowingly. A person acts "knowingly" with respect to conduct or to a circumstance when (he/she) is aware that (his/her) conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists. <See Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.> The state must prove that the defendant knew (he/she) was importing or causing to be imported into Connecticut visual depictions, and that (he/she) knew the content and character of the visual depictions, that is, that (he/she) knew they were child pornography.
Element 3 - Number of
The third element is that the defendant imported or caused to be imported into the state three or more visual depictions of child pornography. A "visual depiction" includes undeveloped film and videotape and information of any kind in any form, including computer software, that is capable of conversion into a visual image and includes encrypted data. It does not matter whether the visual depictions are different images or multiple copies of the same image.1
The fourth element is that (he/she) had the specific intent to promote child pornography. A person acts "intentionally" with respect to conduct when his conscious objective is to engage in such conduct. <See Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.> To "promote" means to (manufacture / issue / sell / give / provide / lend / mail / deliver / transfer / transmit / publish / distribute / circulate / disseminate / present / exhibit / advertise / produce / direct / participate in).
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant (imported child pornography / caused child pornography to be imported) into this state, 2) (he/she) did so knowingly, 3) it consisted of three or more visual depictions, and 4) (he/she) did so with the specific intent to promote child pornography.
If you unanimously find that the
state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime
of importing child pornography, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On
the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the
defendant not guilty.
1 See State v. Sorabella, 277 Conn. 155, 204-206, cert. denied, 549 U.S. 821, 127 S.Ct. 131, 166 L.Ed.2d 36 (2006).
See generally State v. Sorabella, supra, 277 Conn. 155; State v. Ehlers, 252 Conn. 579 (2000).