ALEX HENSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Alex Henson appeals his convictions for sexual battery and related offenses involving a minor. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's admission of child pornography evidence, holding it was directly relevant to proving the charge of providing obscene material to the child and did not require treatment as similar fact evidence.
The images and videos were directly admissible as relevant evidence to corroborate the child's testimony and to prove the charge of providing obscene material to a minor. They did not require treatment as similar fact evidence under section 90.404(2), and their probative value outweighed any prejudice to the defendant.
[1] Child pornography is admissible as relevant evidence to corroborate a victim's testimony when the defendant is charged with providing obscene material to a minor.
[2] Evidence of obscene material shown to a minor is admissible to prove the charge of providing obscene material to a minor, independent of the rules for similar fact eviden…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In light of the charges and other evidence presented, the images and videos were admissible and did not need to be admitted as similar fact evidence under section 90.404(2).”
Establishes that direct evidence of the material itself is admissible without needing to qualify as similar fact evidence when the charge is providing the material
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenson was charged with sexual battery on his minor child, two counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition, and providing obscene material to his child. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lewd Or Lascivious Exhibition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Alex Henson appeals his convictions for sexual battery on his minor child, two counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition in front of his child, and providing obscene material to his child. He argues the trial court erred in admitting and publishing to the jury child pornography he showed to his child because it was not similar fact evidence as defined by section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (2020). The State argues Henson was charged with providing obscene material to his child and so admitting the videos and images that were shown to the child is relevant evidence to corroborate the child’s testimony. We agree and reject Henson’s argument to the contrary.
The child testified that Henson showed her the pornographic images and videos and then acted them out with her. In light of the charges and other evidence presented, the images and videos were admissible and did not need to be admitted as similar fact evidence under section 90.404(2). We also affirm the trial court’s ruling that the probative value of the child pornography outweighed the prejudice to Henson. While the introduction of the child pornography evidence was certainly harmful to Henson’s case, little is more probative to the charge of providing obscene material to a minor than the obscene material itself. We reject Mr. Henson’s other arguments on appeal without further discussion. AFFIRMED. RAY, WINOKUR, and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________