No. 2—09—0550 Opin ion f il ed March 1, 2011

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f S t ep he ns o n C o un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 08—CF—137 ) NATHAN D. KNEBEL, ) Ho no r ab le ) Michael

P. Bald, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUS TI CE SCH OS TO K delivere d t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Jus t ices Bo wman and Birk et t co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON Fol l owi ng a b en ch tri al , de f en da nt, Na tha n D . K ne be l , wa s f oun d gu i l ty of po sses sing ch ild po rno gr aphy(7 20 ILC S 5 /1 1—2 0. 1( a) (6 ) ( West 200 8) ) a nd se nt ence d t o 3 0 mo nt hs’ pr oba t ion. Defend ant t imely

app ealed and no w ar gue s t hat he wa s n ot prov ed gui l ty b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t. Fo rt he r ea so ns t ha t fo llo w, we affir m. The o nly que sti on on appe al i s w he the r th e p hotog

raph th at f orm ed the basis of defendant’s
co nvic t io nis“l ewd” for purpo ses of the child pornogra phy stat ute ( see 720 ILCS 5/ 11 —2 0. 1( a) ( 1) ( vii) (We st 2008 )). In mak ing t his det er minatio n, th e f oll owi n g f actorsare rel

ev an t:

“ (1) [W]hether th

e f ocal poi nt of the visual depiction is on the child’sgeni tals; (2) whether t he setti ng o f t he visua l depi cti on i s se

xua l l y sugg esti ve , i.e. , in apla ce o rpo se ge ne r allyNo. 2—09—0550

-2-

associ ated with sex

ual activ ity ; (3) whether

the chi ld i s depicted in

an un na t ur al p o se , o rin i n appropri ate

at t ire, co nsider ing t he ag e o f t he ch ild; ( 4) wh et he rt he ch ild is fully o rpa r t ially cl ot hed, or nude; (5) wh

eth er th e v i sual de pi cti on su gg ests s ex ual coy n es s or a wi l l i n gn es s to engage i n sex ual acti v i ty ; an d ( 6) wh eth er th e v i sual de pi cti on i s i n te nd ed to eli ci

t a sexual response i n the v ie wer.” People v. La mborn , 185 Il l . 2d 585 , 592 (1 999). See also People v. Sven , 3 65 Ill . App. 3d 226, 230 (2006). A fi ndi ng that the photogr aph i s l ewd does not requ

i re the pres ence of

ev ery f actor. Lamborn , 185 Ill . 2dat 592 ; see al so Sven , 36 5 I ll. App. 3d a t 230 . I nst ead , w e sho uld jud ge t he ph o t o gr ap h in light o f its o ver all cont ent , w hile tak ing i n to co nsider at ion t he ag e o f the chi l d. Lamborn , 185 Il l . 2d at 5 92- 93;se e al so Sven , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 230. The part ies agree that o ur standar d of review is de novo
. Lamborn , 185 Ill . 2d at 590;
se e al so Sven , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 231. We t ur n now t o t he pho t og ra ph at issue. The phot ogr aph depicts a young gi rl, mostlike ly between the ages of 6and 10, l

y i ng n aked on wh at appe arsto be a b ed. A pill ow and some s

tuff ed
an imals are

sc attered arou nd he r. Sh e is l y i ng on her back, using h

er bent arms to p rop herself up so that her sh

oul ders and he ad are

rai sed
. She i s looking di

rectly at the cam

era. The front of her body f rom j us t ab ove

the knee s to th

e top of her hea d is vi si ble. Herhead is co cke d slight ly to her right and sh e i s sm il in g. Her legs a

re sligh tly spread apart and her v

agi nal area i s compl

etely vi si ble. W i th t he ex ce pt io n o f t he fo ur t h fa ct o r( wh et he rt he ch ild is fully o rpa rt ially clothed or n

ude), whi ch defen dant concedes, def

endan t argues that none of the fa ct ors sup po rt s a finding t hat t he photo graph i s l ewd. We di sagree. We find th at a l l si x f actorssu pp ort a f i n di n g of l ew dn es s. Fi rs t, the f oca l poi n t o f t h e photo graph

is on the child’s geni

tals. De fendant arg ues t hat t he focal point is not on t he girl’sNo. 2—09—0550

-3-

ge nit als but rather is on h

er entire b ody. In support of hi s argum ent, defen dant attempts to anal

ogize t his ca se to People v. Lew is , 305 Il l . Ap p. 3d 66 5, 678 ( 1999) , wherethe photogr aph at i ssue sh owed
a young n aked gi rl stan di ng n ex t to a dress er i

n a be droom. Her e, how ever , t he gir l is not st anding
as was t he gir l in Lew

is , but i s i ns tead l y i ng on wh at ap pe ar s t o be a b ed wit h he rleg s s ligh t ly spread. Thi s po sitio n a long wit h t he ang le of t he pho t og ra ph pu t s t he child’s e xpo sed vaginal ar ea a t t he for efro nt of t he pho t og ra ph. W e f urthe r f i nd th at the s ettin

g of the photograph

i s se xua l l y sugg esti ve , i.e. , in a p la ce o r pose ge ne r ally

as so cia t ed wit h se xu al a ct ivit y. D efe nd an t ar gu es : “ T he gir l is recli ni ng on a [sic ] what
co uld be the mattre ss of a b ed orday bed, or even the cus

hion of a couch. There are stuf fed an imals in t he bac kgr ou nd alo ng wit h wh at co uld be a p illo w. Whe t he rt he se t t ing is a be dr o o m, a fa mily
room or some other ro om r equ ires s pec ulat ion. ” Acc or ding t o d efenda nt , “T her e is no t hing se xu ally sug ges t iveab out the s etti

ng .” D ef en da nt a l l ude s to th e ob serv ati

on made in Lew

is , t hat t he fact that there was a m ade-up bed

in t he ba ck gr o un d d id n o t ne ce ss ar ily su gg es t se xu al a ct ivit y, a nd se ems to suggest t ha t t he sa me o bse rva t io n w o uld ap ply he re. On ceag ai n, however, de f

en da nt’ s rel i an ceon Lew is is misplac ed. In Lew

is , t he ch ild

wasnot on the b ed; rathe r, t he child wa s in a bed ro om and t he bed c ou ld be se en in the back gr ou nd. Mo re ove r, t he child in Lew is was st an din g. He r e, t he ch ild is l y i ng on what appe ars to b e a b ed. W he the r i t i s real l y a day be d, a mattre ss , or a

couch cu sh i on is no t impo rt an t . Wha t is imp o r t an t is t ha t t he ch ild is rec l i ni ng on wh at ap pe ar s t o be a b ed , an d in ad di t io n, sh e is in a po se ge ne r ally a ss o cia t ed wit h s ex ua l ac t ivit y. We al so fi

nd t hat the chi

ld i s depicted in

an un natural pose, or in

in appropriate att ire,
co nsider ing

t he ag e o f the child an

d that the phot ogr aph suggests sexual coyn ess or a will

in gness to engage in sexua l act ivity. While it might not be un na tura l f or a c hi l d, w hi l e c l othe d, to l

i e b ac k onNo. 2—09—0550

-4-

a b ed as t he ch ild in t he ph o t o gr ap h is d o ing , t he fac t s t ha t t he ch ild is na ke d a nd t ha t he rva gin a is pr o minen t ly

dis pla yed fo rt he ca mer a r en de rt he po se un na t ur al. Fu rt he r , t he ch ild is l y i n g b ack w i

th her le gs sligh tly open whi le lookin g directl y a t t he cam era and sm

il in g with h er head co cke d t o o ne sid e. S he ap pe ar s in vit ing an d w illing t o en ga ge in s ex ua l ac t ivit y. La st, we tur n to th e q ue sti on of wh eth er th e ph otogr

aph i s i n ten de d to e l i ci

t a sexual response in the view er. A s ou

r cou rt explained in Sven , t he inquir y here is “w het her t he image invite s t he viewer to percei ve the i ma ge from some se xual ized or devia

nt point of v

ie w.” Sven , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 238. Defen

dant argues that the photo graph i s not in tended to eli ci

t a response from

the viewer because “ the

vi ew er i s n ot pla ced i n the poi nt of vi ew of voy eur, s i nc e the y oung c hi l d i s cl earl y awar e of t he ca mera. ” De fendant ’s r eliance o n Sven in su pp o rt o f his argumen t is m is pla ced. At is sue in Sven waswh ethe

r a video t ape t hat t he de fendant made o f his nude t eena ge ba bysitt er bat hing hi s nude infantwa s le wd
. Alt ho ug h t he t ap e in t ha t ca se did pu t t he vie we rin the p osi tion of a voy eur, we did not hold t hat suc h a pe rsp ect ivewas required for a fi ndi ng of i ntent t o elici

t a sexual response f

rom t he viewer . T he vo yeur po int o f view in Sven just hap pened to be an element o f that video; Sven did not mandate a voyeur po in t o f v iew f or a findi ng of lewdness. We find tha t t he pho t og ra ph her e is inte nded t o e licit a se xual r esp ons e fro m the view er . T he photo graph

portray s th e c hi l d a s a sexu al obj ec t. F orall the r eas ons not ed a bove , she app ear s t o be inviting sexu al act ivity with t he viewe r o f the pho t og ra ph. In sum, we ho ld t hat t he pho t og ra ph is “lewd ” fo r p ur po ses o f the child po rno gr aphystatut e. Ac co r di ng ly, we af

fi rm def endan t’s convi ction of posses si

ng ch il d po rnograp hy

(720 ILCS 5/11— 20.1(a )(6) (W est 200 8)). Af fi rmed.