Opinion ID: 2514079
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prosecution of Multiple Counts Under Section 76-5a-3

Text: ¶ 24 Morrison contends section 76-5a-3 provides only for the prosecution of a single count of sexual exploitation of a minor in this case, and the trial court's contrary conclusion was erroneous. Accordingly, Morrison argues, the State's prosecution of multiple counts violated the rule against multiplicity stem[ming] from the 5th Amendment, which prohibits the Government from charging a single offense in several counts and is intended to prevent multiple punishments for the same act. United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723, 729 (5th Cir.1995). We disagree. ¶ 25 We construe section 76-5a-3 according to the fair import of [its] terms to promote justice. Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-106 (1999). In relevant part, section 76-5a-3(1) creates a second degree felony for knowingly . . . possess[ing] . . . material . . . depicting a nude or partially nude minor for the purpose of causing sexual arousal of any person or any person's engagement in sexual conduct with the minor. Id. § 76-5a-3(1). Material is defined as any visual representation including photographs, motion pictures, slides, videotapes, or other pictorial representations produced or recorded by any mechanical, chemical, photographic, or electrical means and includes undeveloped photographs, negatives, or other latent representational objects. Id. § 76-5a-2(3). In short, then, section 76-5a-3(1) is violated by the knowing possession of any visual representation of child pornography. ¶ 26 The clearest reading of the statute is that each individual visual representation of child pornography that is knowingly possessed by a defendant constitutes the basis for a separate offense under section 76-5a-3. Accordingly, in this case, Morrison's possession of multiple photographs depicting child pornography constituted multiple violations of section 76-5a-3. Therefore, the rule against multiplicity was not violated, as that rule only prohibits the Government from charging a single offense in several counts and is intended to prevent multiple punishments for the same act, Kimbrough, 69 F.3d at 729 (emphasis added), and the trial court did not err in denying Morrison's motion to consolidate the counts against him. [6]