ILNews

State, federal double-jeopardy challenge fails

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man’s claims of federal and state double-jeopardy violations were rejected today by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court in a case involving multiple child pornography videos.

In John Thomas Pontius v. State of Indiana, No. 29A04-1001-CR-24, John Pontius appealed two of his five convictions of possession of child pornography as Class D felonies claiming they violated double-jeopardy laws. He also claimed he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

In May 2007, an Indiana State Police detective investigating Internet crimes involving child exploitation detected transmission of certain suspect images to an Internet Protocol address in Carmel. The images were transmitted between Feb. 19 and March 14, 2007. The detective provided information to Noblesville Police, who determined the specific IP address to which the images had been transmitted. Authorities got a search warrant for the home of Pontius’ grandparents, who were the subscribers at the IP address at issue; Pontius lived with them at certain times in 2007. The computer seized from the home contained four pornographic videos, which were all identified as featuring underage girls.

Upon speaking with Pontius, police learned he had downloaded certain materials on two separate computers. Authorities then got a search warrant for Pontius’ parents’ home and seized the computer there. A search of the computer revealed two videos, both downloaded July 16, 2007.

The state charged Pontius July 27, 2007, with six counts of possession of child pornography, with counts 1-4 corresponding to the videos found on the computer at his grandparents’ home and counts 5 and 6 found on the computer at his parents’ home. There is no dispute, however, that videos 1 and 6, which have the same name, are identical in content.

During his bench trial in May 2009, defense counsel commented he had not watched the videos in question. The court convicted Pontius of counts 1-3, 5, and 6, and acquitted him of count 4 on the basis that the individuals pictured “could be persons who might be 18 years of age.” He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 3 years on each count, with 545 days executed and 550 days suspended to probation.

On appeal, Pontius argued because of the identical content of videos 1 and 6, his convictions for both violate double jeopardy under the federal and state constitutions. He also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to view the videos, causing prejudice by permitting Pontius to be convicted of two allegedly identical counts, impeding defense counsel’s ability to cross-examine witnesses regarding the age of video participants, and undermining defense counsel’s argument that Pontius’ possession of the videos was not knowing or intentional.

Pontius claimed that his dual convictions pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-42-4-4(c) for counts 1 and 6, which are based upon the same video, constitute impermissible multiple convictions in violation of double-jeopardy principles.

Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford noted the court recently evaluated Ind. Code Section 35-42-4-4(c) in the context of a double jeopardy challenge. See Brown v. State, 912 N.E.2d at 896. In Brown, the court first considered the plain language of the statute because the legislature had defined the crime of possession of child pornography by referencing objects in the singular – a picture, a videotape, for instance – suggesting that its clear intent was to make the possession of each separate picture or video a distinct occurrence of offensive conduct in violation of the law. The court also considered the policies behind the law: preventing the victimization of children and obstructing the growth of the child pornography industry. Because of that, the Brown court ruled that “‘multiple convictions and punishments for possession of child pornography distinguished only by the image so possessed do not violate federal double jeopardy principles.’ Id. at 896.”

But in the instant case, the two digital video files at issue are identical and can be distinguished only by the computers on which they were found, the location of the computers, and the time of their downloads. The state argued those distinctions were adequate to sustain separate convictions, citing the New Hampshire case of State v. Ravell, 922 A.2d 685 (N.H. 2007).

In agreeing with the Ravell court, the appellate panel in the instant case wrote that limiting convictions for “double” possession of duplicate copies of child pornography on different computers or hard drives dilutes the legislature’s purpose of preventing child exploitation and growth of the child pornography industry.

“Were Videos 1 and 6 in the instant case the product of data back-up protocols or procedures, perhaps the broad language of section 35-42-4-4(c) would not apply. See Ravell, 922 A.2d at 688 …” the court wrote. “But here, while two of Pontius’s convictions were based upon possession of a single digital video file, he downloaded that file at two separate times, onto two separate computers and hard drives located at two separate residences, as Videos 1 and 6. Through two different, volitional transactions, Pontius possessed the same child pornography in two separate places, and he therefore committed two separate crimes. See U.S. v. Planck, 493 F.3d 501, 504 (5th Cir. 2007)….”

The court found no federal double-jeopardy violation.

Regarding the claims of double-jeopardy violations of state law, the court noted that given the separate evidence used to prove the existence of two copies of the same, distinct digital video file, it was rejecting the double-jeopardy challenge under the Indiana Constitution.

The court also found no prejudice regarding the claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that the claims do not warrant relief.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT