Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; September 26, 1997; Alabama; State Appellate Court
R. K. D. was convicted of possessing obscene material depicting individuals under 17 engaged in certain sexual acts, violating Alabama Code 13A-12-192(b). He received a 15-year sentence under the Habitual Felony Offender Act. R. K. D. contends that the State did not prove he possessed the required obscene material. The State argues that this issue was not preserved for appeal, as R. K. D. did not specifically challenge whether any exhibits were visual reproductions of a "live act." The court noted that the terms "visual reproduction" are not defined in the relevant statutes. During the acquittal motion, R. K. D.'s defense asserted that the State's witness testified there were no visual reproductions of minors in the exhibits. The defense argued that the statute implies a direct correlation between possession and the nature of the reproductions, and suggested that drawings should not be included under "visual reproduction." The court disagreed, stating that “visual reproduction” could encompass drawings and other forms beyond photographs. The defense maintained that allowing such interpretations would criminalize the act of drawing lewd pictures. Case precedents highlighted the necessity for objections to be specific enough to inform the trial court for adequate decision-making.
The statement of specific grounds for objection waives all unspecified grounds, preventing a trial court from being held in error on those grounds that were not assigned during the trial (Ex parte Frith, 526 So.2d 880). This procedural rule is intended to allow the trial court the opportunity to correct alleged errors. When a defendant cites specific grounds in a motion for judgment of acquittal, they are bound by those grounds and cannot introduce new ones on appeal (Washington v. State, 555 So.2d 347).
In the appellant's case, during the argument concerning the motion, appellate counsel referred to the relevant Alabama statute, 13A-12-192(b), indicating that no visual reproduction of a child under seventeen was present in the evidence. Although the term "live act" was not explicitly stated, it is encompassed within the definition of "matter" in 13A-12-190(12), which counsel did reference. The argument made by counsel sufficiently informed the trial court of the basis for the acquittal motion, meeting the requirements of Alabama law.
The court concluded that dismissing the appellant's argument for lack of preservation would prioritize form over substance, jeopardizing justice. Consequently, the court would review whether the trial court erred in denying the judgment of acquittal. The appellant was charged with possessing obscene matter under 13A-12-192(b), which criminalizes the knowing possession of obscene materials depicting minors engaged in sexual conduct. The definition of "matter" includes various forms of visual reproduction, and it is established that criminal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of defendants. Therefore, a person cannot be punished under a statute if their actions do not clearly fall within its explicit terms (Schenher v. State, 38 Ala. App. 573; Fuller v. State, 257 Ala. 502).
No individual can be subjected to penal statutes through implication, and any ambiguities in their interpretation must favor the accused. Criminal statutes cannot be extended by construction, as established in several Alabama cases. According to § 13A-1-6 of the Code of Alabama 1975, criminal provisions should be interpreted to promote justice and align with their fair meaning, prioritizing the statute's explicit terms over legislative intent. The focus is on how the statute is understood rather than conjecturing the legislature's desires.
In the case at hand, evidence presented at trial indicated that the appellant was stopped for weaving in his vehicle. Upon failing to produce a driver's license and passing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. During the arrest, officers discovered a can of beer in the vehicle, leading to further searches that uncovered additional beer and items in the trunk, including a drawing and a suitcase containing images. However, upon reviewing the evidence, the court determined that the items did not support a charge of possession of obscene matter under § 13A-12-192(b), as most images were merely of clothed children from advertisements and did not meet the legal definition of obscenity.
Four photographs admitted as evidence depict a young girl in a swimsuit, deemed not obscene. However, other exhibits, including hand-drawn images of a naked girl with an adult male, do not meet the legal definition of 'matter' under Alabama law, as they do not represent actual live acts or performances. The court finds the depictions objectionable but acknowledges a lack of evidence proving any actual harm to a child. Previous rulings indicate that the purpose of the relevant statute is to protect minors, but here, there is no evidence that any child was harmed or involved in the acts represented. Additionally, sexually explicit magazines featuring adults over 17 were also admitted but deemed irrelevant to the case. The court emphasizes that penal statutes should be interpreted in favor of the accused, leading to the reversal of the appellant's conviction. The appellant also pleaded guilty to separate drug-related charges, receiving concurrent sentences of twelve months for possession of marijuana and six months for drug paraphernalia, but did not contest these convictions on appeal.
