(a) A person is guilty of possessing child sexual abuse material in the first degree when such person knowingly possesses (1) fifty or more visual depictions of child sexual abuse material, or (2) one or more visual depictions of child sexual abuse material that depict the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury, or (3) (A) a series of images in electronic, digital or other format, which is intended to be displayed continuously, consisting of two or more frames, or a film or videotape, consisting of two or more frames, that depicts (i) more than one child engaging in sexually explicit conduct, or (ii) more than one act of sexually explicit conduct by one or more children, or (B) any combination of a (i) series of images in electronic, digital or other format, which is intended to be displayed continuously, (ii) film, or (iii) videotape, which series, film or videotape each consists of two or more frames and depicts a single act of sexually explicit conduct by one child.
(b) In any prosecution for an offense under this section, it shall be an affirmative defense that the acts of the defendant, if proven, would constitute a violation of section 53a-196h.
(c) Possessing child sexual abuse material in the first degree is a class B felony and any person found guilty under this section shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which five years of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court.
(P.A. 95-143, S. 3; P.A. 04-139, S. 4; P.A. 07-143, S. 8; P.A. 10-112, S. 3; 10-191, S. 2; P.A. 14-192, S. 1; P.A. 24-118, S. 4.)
History: P.A. 04-139 renamed offense by replacing “possessing child pornography” with “possessing child pornography in the first degree” where appearing, amended Subsec. (a) to replace provision that offense occurs when a person “knowingly possesses child pornography, as defined in subdivision (13) of section 53a-193” with “knowingly possesses fifty or more visual depictions of child pornography” and delete provision that possession of a photographic or other visual reproduction of a nude minor for a bona fide artistic, medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental or judicial purpose is not a violation of subsection, and amended Subsec. (b) to increase penalty from a class D felony to a class B felony; P.A. 07-143 amended Subsec. (b) to require any person found guilty to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which 5 years of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court, effective July 1, 2007; P.A. 10-112 amended Subsec. (a) to designate existing provision re 50 or more visual depictions as Subdiv. (1) and add Subdiv. (2) re visual depictions of child pornography that depict infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury; P.A. 10-191 added new Subsec. (b) re affirmative defense and redesignated existing Subsec. (b) as Subsec. (c); P.A. 14-192 amended Subsec. (a) to add Subdiv. (3) re possession of series of images in electronic, digital or other format intended to be displayed continuously, or a film or videotape; P.A. 24-118 replaced references to “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse material” throughout.
Trial court properly rejected defendant's claim that statute is unconstitutionally vague; there is no first amendment right to possess materials otherwise covered by definition of child pornography specified in Sec. 53a-193(13) when the person depicted is younger than 18, statute is not unconstitutional on its face and defendant having conceded that statute clearly gives fair notice that pornographic materials depicting children under 16 are prohibited and having admitted that he possessed materials depicting children under 16, statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant; “minor”, for purposes of statute, means a person under 16 years of age. 252 C. 579.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case:
State v. Ehlers, 750 A.2d 1079 (Conn. 2000).
State v. Ehlers, 750 A.2d 1079 (Conn. 2000).
· cites it 42× “, was charged in an information with one count of possessing child pornography in violation of General Statutes § 53a-196d. 2 The material in question consists of numerous photographs of young children in the nude, some depicting the children performing sex acts with each other…”
State v. Saturno, 139 A.3d 629 (Conn. 2016).
· cites it 6× “The defendant, Donald Saturno, appeals from the judgments of conviction rendered by the trial court following his conditional pleas of nolo contendere, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a,1 to one count of manufacturing a bomb in violation of Gen- eral Statutes § 53-80a and…”
State v. Hanson, 979 A.2d 576 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 8× “See General Statutes § 53a-196d. There was a colloquy between the defendant's attorney and the prosecutor at a hearing on October 26, 2007, regarding the sentencing guidelines pursuant to the child pornography statute.”
State v. Inzitari, 351 Conn. 86 (Conn. 2025).
· cites it 11× “to 2019) § 53a-196d (a) (1)) that he had possessed fifty or more images of child pornography and thirteen of the fifty-seven images in evidence depicted child nudity that constituted protected expression under the first amendment to the United States consti- tution rather than…”
State v. Luurtsema, 811 A.2d 223 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 2× “2d 1079 (2000) (considering whether interpretation of General Statutes § 53a-196d would lead to absurd result when reviewing defendant’s claim of insufficient evidence for conviction of possession of child pornography); State v.”
State v. Stephens, 22 A.3d 1262 (Conn. 2011).
· cites it 4× “to 2003) § 53a-196d 1 had violated a special condition of his probation that prohibited him from possessing, or subscribing to, any “sexually stimulating material deemed inappropriate by a [probation [o]ffi- *793 cer .”
State v. Sawyer, 335 Conn. 29 (Conn. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Detectives then obtained and executed a warrant to arrest the defendant for possession of child pornography in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-196d. The state initially charged the defendant with posses- sion of child pornography in the first degree, and…”
State v. Swebilius, 159 A.3d 1099 (Conn. 2017).
“to 2007) § 53a-196d (a) and was arrested thirty-two days after the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and thirteen days after the expiration of the applicable five year statute of limitations for that offense.”
State v. DiMeco, 15 A.3d 1204 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 2× “to 2009) § 53a-196d. 2 On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to suppress the data and images found on his computer, which were seized pursuant to a search warrant.”
State v. Charles F., 36 A.3d 731 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 2× “On October 17, 2006, local police discovered over fifty images in the defendant’s possession depicting naked minor children engaged in sexual intercourse with adults.”
State v. Spence, 138 A.3d 1048 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 6× “The defendant, John Marshall Spence, appeals from the trial court's judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of possession of child pornography in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-196d (a)(1). 1 On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.