ComputerForensicsDigest.com

Brief Summary: Tod Corder pleaded guilty to various charges related to the sexual abuse of children, including two counts of possession of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. He was sentenced to 600 months in prison. Corder raised several issues on appeal, including a claim that the possession charges failed to allege the essential element of knowledge.

Facts: From the ages of 5 to 15, J.C. was sexually abused by her father, Tod Corder. She reported the abuse to a school counselor and police officer. During the ensuing investigation, a search of Corder's computer revealed thousands of images of child pornography, including many images of J.C. Electronic records indicated that at least one of the sexually explicit images of J.C. was posted to an Internet web site.

Corder pleaded guilty to six different charges, including two counts of possession of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. On appeal, Corder argued that the information charging him with possession failed to set forth the statutory element of knowledge.

Specifically, Corder asserted that the failure of the information to set out the essential elements of the possession charges failed to give him adequate notice of the crime with which he was charged.

Issue(s): Whether the language of the information charging Corder with two counts of possession of depiction of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct was sufficiently specific to provide Corder with notice of his alleged crime.

Ruling: No, the information was fatally flawed.

Rationale: Corder was charged under RCW 9.68A.070, which states that "A person who knowingly possesses visual or printed matter depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct is guilty of a class C felony." The State is required to prove not merely that the accused actually possessed the contraband materials, but also had knowledge of their general character.

In this case, the information merely asserted that Corder had possession of certain sexually explicit materials involving children, but made no charge that such possession was illegal. The State argued that Corder was put on notice by the fact that the information referenced RCW 9.68.070, but the Court pointed out that in fact, the State listed the wrong statute ("9.68" instead of "9.68A").

More importantly, Washington law requires the information to explicitly state the elements of the charge on its face. Since the information failed to set out the element of knowledge or in any way describe Corder's conduct as unlawful or criminal, it is fatally flawed.

The Court struck Corder's guilty plea on the possession counts and dismissed the charges, but noted that its action was without prejudice to the State's ability to file a new information based on the same facts.