Child abuse and child pornography are both crimes in Maryland. When evidence comes to light that might implicate these crimes, Maryland prosecuting attorneys have a variety of ways of charging crimes and seeking convictions. A good example comes from the case of Turenne v. State, 321 A. 3d 697 (Md: Court of Appeals 2024). In that case, the defendant took eight photographs of very young girls who were in her care when she worked at a daycare facility as a caregiver/aide. Each photo showed one girl. None of the photos showed faces; just the naked pubic area. No sexual contact or acts were depicted in any of the photos. On the day the photographs were discovered, the defendant said she took the photos for “no reason” and that the photos had “no meaning.” Later, she changed her story and said that the photos were taken to document diaper rashes that she saw.

The defendant was charged with three crimes for each photo: production of child pornography, possession of child pornography, and child sexual abuse. As an aside, this case shows a good example of how prosecuting attorneys will charge as many crimes as possible — “stacking” the charges — to increase their chances of conviction and to increase potential sentencing. Prosecutors also do this for the purpose of creating as many “bargaining chips” as they can for plea bargain negotiations (if offered).

At trial, the criminal defense relied largely on the fact that the photos were not obviously pornographic in the sense of depicting sexual acts. The defendant testified at her trial and said that taking the photos had nothing to do with sexual gratification. Rather, as noted, she claimed to be documenting diaper rashes.

As for the child abuse charges, the defendant again raised the defense that the photos were not taken to satisfy any sexual desire. Since there was no evidence of any sexual acts or anything else that would be sexual exploitation of minors, the prosecution had to prove that the photos were a “lascivious exhibition” of a child’s genitals. That is, the prosecution had to convince the jury that the photos were for sexual gratification.

The jury convicted on all counts.

As allowed by the Maryland Criminal Code, the defendant appealed her convictions. She continued to raise the legal arguments that the photos were not pornographic because they were not taken for sexual gratification. She also continued to argue that there was no child abuse since nothing was done to the children other than the taking of photos and, again, since there was no gratification of a sexual desire, there was no “lascivious exhibition” of a child’s genitals. Maryland’s highest court confirmed the convictions. The high court essentially held that it was for the jury to decide if the photographs were taken for the purposes of sexual gratification. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to make that determination. Because of that determination, the pornography charges were confirmed, as well as the child abuse charges.

Contact Waldorf, Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyer Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions, contact our office to speak to an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer at (301) 870-1200. We are Waldorf, MD, Criminal Defense lawyers. Our address is 2670 Crain Highway, Waldorf, MD 20601.