Facts of the Case
Lightel pled guilty to multiple counts of sexual exploitation of a minor based on his possession of child sex abuse material (CSAM or child pornography). An adult convicted of this offense in Utah generally must register as a sex offender for life. Utah Criminal Code includes an exception, however, when the adult offender was under twenty-one when they committed the offense and the offense “did not involve force or coercion.”
At sentencing, Lightel argued that the lifetime registry requirement did not apply to him, because he was only twenty years old when he possessed the material, and he did not create the material or do anything involving force or coercion. The state made the counterargument that the specific images and material Lightel possessed depicted actual force or coercion. The district court agreed with the state and ordered that Lightel would not be eligible for the lifetime registry exception.
Issue of the Case
The Utah Court of Appeals analyzed the trial court’s interpretation of Utah Criminal Code section 77-41-105(3)(c)(iii), regarding the statutory exception to the lifetime registration requirement. The Court specifically looked at the role of “force or coercion” in cases of CSAM possession where the defendant was not involved in creating the material.
Analysis
The Court of Appeals began by analyzing the meaning of whether an offense involves force or coercion. The Court used a definition of involve as “to have within, or as a part of itself.” In this context the Court examined whether sexual exploitation of a minor has “within, or as a part of itself” force or coercion. Lightel committed sexual exploitation of a minor when he (1) knowingly, (2) possessed or intentionally viewed, (3) an item of child sexual abuse material. The particular piece of CSAM that an offender possesses, or views is accordingly an element of the crime of sexual exploitation of a minor, making the material itself “within or a part of the offense.” If the CSAM an offender possesses depicts a minor being forced or coerced into engaging in sexually explicit conduct, then the offense would involve force or coercion.
The Court noted further that the lifetime registry exception is based on a two-pronged inquiry, both the age of the offender and whether the offense involved force or coercion. If the Court were to rule that sexual exploitation of a minor does not involve force or coercion when the offender merely possesses or views CSAM but does not create it, then the Court would be effectively eliminating the two-pronged inquiry. The Court reasoned that the legislature intended for criminal sentencing of sexual exploitation of a minor to be based on both the offender’s age, and the coercive quality of the material possessed.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that because some of the material possessed depicted force or coercion, the district court did not err when finding that Lightel was not eligible for the lifetime registry exception. The Court stated further that a sentencing court is required to examine both the defendant’s conduct, as well as the child sex abuse material itself for force or coercion.