KEVIN G. JALBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Jalbert appeals his convictions for promoting a sexual performance by a child and possessing child pornography, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because the State failed to establish the photographs depicted actual children rather than computer-generated images. The appellate court affirms, holding that whether photographs depict actual children is a factual question for the jury, not a legal question for dismissal at the motion stage.
The trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss because whether photographs depict actual children is a question of fact appropriate for the jury to determine, not a legal question supporting dismissal. Speculation that photographs may be computer-generated or depict adults is insufficient to warrant dismissal.
[1] A trial court, when considering a motion to dismiss, must construe all evidence and inferences in a light most favorable to the State and cannot decide factual issues, de…
[2] The State is not obligated to produce evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction at the motion to dismiss stage; a prima facie case is sufficient to proceed with prosecu…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“When considering a motion to dismiss, the trial court cannot decide factual issues, determine the weight to be given to conflicting evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing motions to dismiss—courts must not resolve factual disputes at this stage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJalbert was charged with one count of promoting a sexual performance by a child and fifty-nine counts of unlawful possession of child pornography. He …
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 Question Of Law Vs. Question Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
Kevin G. Jalbert appeals his convictions of one count of promoting a sexual performance by a child in violation of section 827.071(3), Florida Statutes (2001), and fifty-nine counts of unlawful possession of child pornography, in violation of section 827.071(5), Florida Statutes (2001). Jal-bert argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the child pornography charges because the State failed to establish that the photographs depicted actual children and were not computer-generated children or adults resembling children. We disagree and affirm.
Jalbert filed an unsworn pre-trial motion to dismiss the child pornography charges, arguing that the State had no evidence that the pictures depicted actual children. After reviewing the photographs, the trial court ruled that “[t]he issues presented are clearly factual in nature for the jury to decide.... ” Subsequently, Jalbert entered a plea to the charges, resulting in a thirty-year sentence. Although there was no explicit finding that this issue was dispositive, Jal-bert reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.
When considering a motion to dismiss, the trial court cannot decide factual issues, determine the weight to be given to conflicting evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. State v. Feagle, 600 So. 2d 1236, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). To the contrary, the trial court must construe all evidence and inferences in a light most favorable to the State. Vanhoosen v. State, 469 So. 2d 230, 231-32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The State is not obligated to produce evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction. Feagle, 600 So. 2d at 1239. “As long as the State shows the barest prima facie case, it should not be prevented from prosecuting.” Vanhoosen, 469 So. 2d at 232.
The question of whether the photographs depicted actual children is a question of fact, not law, and is appropriate for the trier of fact to determine. See U.S. v. Farrelly, 389 F. 3d 649 (6th Cir.2004); U.S. v. Rearden, 349 F. 3d 608 (9th Cir.2003). Jalbert’s speculation that the photographs may have been computer-generated “virtual” children or adults who resemble children is insufficient to cause the dismissal of the information against him. See U.S. v. Vig, 167 F. 3d 443 (8th Cir.1999).1
AFFIRMED.
PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur. . Based on Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 122 S.Ct. 1389, 152 L.Ed.2d 403 (2002), had this case proceeded to trial, the State would have been required to prove that the photographs and images depicted actual children in order to sustain a conviction. See U.S. v. Hilton, 386 F. 3d 13 (1st Cir.2004); see also U.S. v. Slanina, 359 F. 3d 356 (5th Cir.2004); U.S. v. Ellyson, 326 F. 3d 522 (4th Cir.2003).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Audria Diane Gensler, 929 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…he State argues that the undisputed material facts are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of vehicular homicide. We agree. As long as the State shows the barest prima facie case, it should not be prevented from prosecuting. Jalbert v. State, 906 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); State v. Pasko, 815 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)(citing State v. Hunwick, 446 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)). A motion to dismiss should rarely be granted, State v. Carroll, 404 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), and gr…
Authorities Cited
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234 (U.S. 2002)
- Vanhoosen v. State, 469 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- White v. State, 600 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- State v. Feagle, 600 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)