Moore v. State
Decision Date | 11 August 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 143 September Term 2004.,143 September Term 2004. |
Citation | 388 Md. 446,879 A.2d 1111 |
Parties | Jonathan George MOORE v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Claudia A. Cortese, Assistant Public Defender (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender, of Baltimore) on brief, for appellant.
Devy Patterson Russell, Assistant Attorney General (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, of Baltimore) on brief, for appellee.
Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA and GREENE, JJ.
The question we must decide in this case is whether a person who downloads onto a computer visual representations of a minor engaged in obscene acts or sexual conduct violates Md.Code (2002, 2004 Cum.Supp.), § 11-207(a)(3) of the Criminal Law Article1 proscribing the "use [of] a computer to depict or describe a minor engaging in an obscene act, sadomasochistic abuse, or sexual conduct." We shall answer that question in the negative and reverse.
Moore was indicted by the Grand Jury for St. Mary's County in a two count indictment, alleging violations of § 11-207(a)(3) and § 11-208(a) respectively. Count I alleged that Moore had "us[ed] a computer to depict and describe a minor engaging in an obscene act, sadomasochistic abuse, and sexual conduct" in violation of § 11-207(a)(3). Count II alleged that Moore "knowing[ly] possess[ed] a film, videotape, photograph, and other visual representation depicting an individual under the age of 16 years ... engaged in sexual conduct" in violation of § 11-208(a).
Before the Circuit Court on June 21, 2004, Moore entered a plea of not guilty and proceeded on an agreed statement of facts. The State read the following agreed statement of facts into the record:
Moore moved for a judgment of acquittal as to Count I, arguing that his conduct was not prohibited by § 11-207(a)(3). The court denied the motion and found Moore guilty of both counts in the indictment. The court reasoned that the ordinary, plain meaning of the statutory language proscribed the conduct at issue and that Moore's acts fell within the intended scope of the statute. The court merged the two counts for sentencing purposes and sentenced Moore to a term of three years incarceration on Count I, with all but nine months suspended.2
Moore noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. Before that court considered the case, we granted certiorari on our own initiative to consider the following question:
"Does a person who downloads visual representations of a minor engaged in obscene acts or sexual conduct from a computer violate Md. Crim Law, § 11-207(a)(3)'s proscription against `us[ing] a computer to depict or describe a minor engaging in an obscene act, sadomasochistic abuse or sexual conduct?'"
Under § 11-207(a)(3), a person may not "use a computer to depict or describe a minor engaging in an obscene act, sadomasochistic abuse, or sexual conduct...." To resolve the issue before us, we must interpret the phrase "to use a computer to depict or describe."
Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and, therefore, we review de novo the decision of the Circuit Court. See Collins v. State, 383 Md. 684, 688, 861 A.2d 727, 730 (2004)
. The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. Piper Rudnick v. Hartz, 386 Md. 201, 218, 872 A.2d 58, 68 (2005). In ascertaining legislative intent, we first examine the plain language of the statute, and if the plain language of the statute is unambiguous and consistent with the apparent purpose of the statute, we give effect to the statute as it is written. Id.
aff'd
335 Md. 20, 641 A.2d 870 (1994) ( ). The Supreme Court has recognized that "[t]he prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of children constitutes a government objective of surpassing importance." Ferber, 458 U.S. at 757,
102 S.Ct. at 3355. In Ferber, the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
100 Harborview Drive Condo. Council of Unit Owners v. Clark
...Comm'n v. Anderson, 395 Md. 172, 181, 909 A.2d 694 (2006) ), aff'd, 421 Md. 266, 26 A.3d 878 (2011) ; see also Moore v. State, 388 Md. 446, 452, 879 A.2d 1111 (2005). “Although the factual determinations of the circuit court are afforded significant deference on review, its legal determinat......
-
Waldt v. Umms
...de novo. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Comm'n v. Anderson, 395 Md. 172, 181, 909 A.2d 694 (2006); Moore v. State, 388 Md. 446, 452, 879 A.2d 1111 (2005). Just as the Witte Court concluded that the plain meaning of the phrase "activities that directly involve testimony in perso......
-
Alston v. State
...renders any portion superfluous. Design Kitchen and Baths v. Lagos, 388 Md. 718, 729, 882 A.2d 817, 823-24 (2005); Moore v. State, 388 Md. 446, 453, 879 A.2d 1111, 1114 (2005); Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19, 59, 702 A.2d 699, 719 (1997). We have also recognized that 'Where the words of a statut......
-
Payne v. State
...in 1978 following the enactment of the federal Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977.In Moore v. State , 388 Md. 446, 879 A.2d 1111 (2005), the Court of Appeals discussed the history of both the federal and Maryland child pornography statutes, explaining:The statuto......