OH- Teen: Others sent her ‘unclothed’ pics

Why would a lawyer even allow into evidence a comment about a "male chest" when he knows that such is not child porn? My opinion is, he is preserving another issue should he need to go there, the issue is, at what point or age does a FEMALE chest become child porn? How is the standard defined? This case bears watching.

11-21-2008 Ohio:

NEWARK — While one case seems headed for closure, three more might be opened in connection with a 15-year-old’s transmission of nude photographs of herself.

The Licking Valley High School student explained her actions, repented and revealed new information to Judge Robert Hoover on Thursday in the Juvenile Division of Licking County Common Pleas Court.

The hearing took an unexpected twist when the accused told Hoover she wasn’t the only one making illegal use of her cell-phone camera.

“I took pictures of myself and sent them to guys. ... They sent me pictures back,” she said, later adding the self-portraits were “clothed and unclothed.”

The child’s foster mother told the court she had seen one photograph of a shirtless male.

Licking County Prosecutor Ken Oswalt told the judge he was unaware of any photographs recovered off the phone. He said after the hearing the girl might not understand that a depiction of a male juvenile without a shirt does not qualify as child pornography.

He added he will inquire about the girl’s allegations, but the possibility of charges against the boys — from Licking Heights, Utica and Heath high schools — who received her photographs already existed.

“I wanted to see what happened here and use that as a guidepost to see what the court finds appropriate,” Oswalt said, adding the situations of the photo recipients will be reviewed to learn what they knew about the illegality of their alleged deeds.

Chance To Dismiss Charges

The defendant entered a plea of admit to one count of possession of criminal tools, a fifth-degree felony, for the employing a cell phone to transmit nude photos of herself to others sometime in September.

As expected, Juvenile Judge Robert Hoover refused to accept the plea.

This move allows the girl to complete what is essentially a diversion program, defense attorney Jill Cochran said.

If she adheres to all conditions, the case will be dismissed in April or May and will not be a part of any juvenile criminal record, Hoover said.

“This doesn’t have to follow you the rest of your life ... but you have to earn that,” he told the girl.

Several conditions were laid out, including no cell phones or unsupervised Internet usage and a curfew, according to statements made by Cochran and probation officers.

Under questioning by Hoover, she listed several unpleasant scenarios of what could happen should her photographs fall into the wrong hands.

“I wasn’t really thinking when I did it,” she told Hoover. “I didn’t think they would get around to other people.”

All parties in the court praised the girl’s acceptance of responsibility, with Oswalt saying, “This young lady will do great. She’s got a great attitude.”

Will Attention Deter Others?

Her story received national media attention when she was arrested Oct. 3 and spent the weekend in custody after school officials were alerted to the situation and passed the information to the school’s resource officer.

She took and sent the photos about a month after Oswalt had visited LVHS and warned students against engaging in this type of behavior, as he had at other county high schools. The girl had been pulled aside and individually warned against this type of behavior by school officials, a press release from Oswalt states.

Those elements forced the Prosecutor’s Office to pursue charges rather than taking action with parents, as had been done with about 20 other minors, Oswalt said.

“Every case is potentially a little different,” he said after the hearing. “There are a lot of different dispositions possible.”

Oswalt said the publicity generated by the decision to prosecute might end up proving to be the most effective deterrent.

“This is serious stuff,” he said. “I’m not out there telling them one thing and then not backing it up.”

As part of a previously announced joint agreement, the more significant charge — illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, a second-degree felony that can qualify the guilty party as a Tier II sexual offender — was dismissed.

Penalties For Minors Questioned

Unlike in adult court, the judge in juvenile cases with certain sex offenses, such as the child pornography statute, has discretion on whether the child should be classified as a sex offender.

Oswalt and Cochran announced an agreement wherein the girl would avoid sex offender status and the 20 years of registration it would have entailed.

Cochran declined to comment on how she thought the case would have concluded had it gone to trial, but she did say lawmakers need to re-examine the application of sex-offender designations in juvenile cases.

She said situations like her client’s highlight the inappropriateness of marking juveniles as sex offenders for consensual, though illegal, actions with other juveniles.

Offenses of theft and violence generally translate from adult to juvenile courts more fluidly, but in crimes of a sexual nature victim age categories — such as younger than 13 or between the ages of 13 and 16 — don’t follow the spirit of the law when the alleged offender is of the same age, she said. ..News Source.. by RUSS ZIMMER • Newark Advocate