Utah Court of Appeals
When is expert testimony required in child pornography prosecutions? State v. Jordan Explained
Summary
Jordan was convicted of thirty-three felonies for sexually abusing his stepchildren and possessing child pornography. He appealed claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficient evidence. The court granted his Rule 23B motion for remand on twelve counts but affirmed twenty-one convictions.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Jordan addressed critical questions about expert testimony requirements in child pornography prosecutions and the distinction between a defendant’s intent as producer versus possessor of images.
Background and Facts: Jordan was convicted of thirty-three felonies, including sexual abuse of his stepchildren and possession of child pornography found on his laptop. The case involved photographs of varying clarity—some clearly depicting minors, others where the age determination was less obvious. Jordan claimed his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing arguments and failing to seek expert testimony on certain images.
Key Legal Issues: The court addressed two primary questions: First, when expert testimony is required to establish that individuals depicted in photographs are minors. Second, whether prosecutors may argue about a defendant’s intent when the defendant’s only established relationship to photographs is as possessor rather than producer.
Court’s Analysis and Holding: Drawing on State v. Alinas and federal precedent, the court adopted a case-by-case approach for determining when expert testimony is necessary. Where photographs clearly depict minors, juries can make age determinations without expert assistance. However, in close cases where laypersons cannot reasonably determine whether individuals are minors, expert testimony is required. The court also distinguished between arguing about a defendant’s intent as producer versus possessor of images, finding that State v. Morrison allows consideration of producer intent but not mere possessor intent when images are not objectively sexual.
Practice Implications: Defense attorneys should carefully examine all images in child pornography cases to determine whether expert testimony challenges are viable. When the State cannot prove the defendant produced specific images, objecting to arguments about the defendant’s intent as possessor may be successful. The court’s Rule 23B remand also demonstrates the importance of thoroughly investigating potential impeachment evidence and third-party access to devices containing contraband.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Jordan
Citation
2018 UT App 187
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20160439-CA
Date Decided
September 27, 2018
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
Trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor’s closing argument regarding the canal photograph where no evidence established defendant took the photo, and expert testimony was required for one child pornography count where the photograph did not clearly depict a minor.
Standard of Review
Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are reviewed as a matter of law when raised for the first time on appeal. Sufficiency of evidence challenges are reviewed by examining evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, vacating convictions only when evidence is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable that reasonable minds must have entertained reasonable doubt. Rule 23B motions require non-speculative allegations of facts not fully appearing in the record that could support a determination that counsel was ineffective.
Practice Tip
When challenging child pornography convictions, carefully examine whether photographs clearly depict minors—expert testimony may be required in close cases where lay jurors cannot reasonably determine age.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.