K.S.A. » Chapter 21
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 21-5610 (2026)

Unlawful possession of a visual depiction of a child

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-5610. Unlawful possession of a visual depiction of a child. (a) Unlawful possession of a visual depiction of a child is knowingly possessing a visual depiction of a child 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age in a state of nudity, if committed by a person less than 19 years of age, and the possessor of such visual depiction received such visual depiction directly and exclusively from the child who is the subject of such visual depiction.

(b) Unlawful possession of a visual depiction of a child is a class B person misdemeanor.

(c) It shall be an affirmative defense to any prosecution under this section that the recipient of a visual depiction of a child in a state of nudity:

(1) Received such visual depiction without requesting, coercing or otherwise attempting to obtain such visual depiction;

(2) did not transmit, exhibit or disseminate such visual depiction; and

(3) made a good faith effort to erase, delete or otherwise destroy such visual depiction.

(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to possession of a visual depiction of a child in a state of nudity if the person possessing such visual depiction is the child who is the subject of such visual depiction.

(e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a visual depiction of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct or a visual depiction that constitutes obscenity as defined in K.S.A. 21-6401(f)(1), and amendments thereto.

(f) It shall not be unlawful for a person who is less than 19 years of age to possess a visual depiction of a child in a state of nudity who is 16 years of age or older.

History: L. 2016, ch. 96, § 2; July 1.


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2023–2024 · leading case: State v. Grant (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Grant (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “Grant asserts his plea counsel did not advise him of statutory defenses to sexual exploitation of a child in K.S.A. 21-5610 and K.S.A. 21- 5611. Because we find that counsel was not ineffective for failing to notify Grant of a defense that was unavailable to him, we affirm.”
State v. Thornton (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “"(a) Any person who— "(a) Except as provided in K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5610 .... and 21-5611, .”
Sellers (ID 99071) v. Sauers (D. Kan. 2023). “2021) (internal citations and 3 In his traverse, Petitioner raises an additional issue based on an affirmative defense to unlawful possession of a visual description of a child, as recognized in K.S.A. 21-5610, which was enacted in 2016.”
— K.S.A. § 21-5610(e) — 1 case
State v. Grant (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “Grant asserts his plea counsel did not advise him of statutory defenses to sexual exploitation of a child in K.S.A. 21-5610 and K.S.A. 21- 5611. Because we find that counsel was not ineffective for failing to notify Grant of a defense that was unavailable to him, we affirm.”
— K.S.A. § 21-5610(f) — 1 case
State v. Grant (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “Grant asserts his plea counsel did not advise him of statutory defenses to sexual exploitation of a child in K.S.A. 21-5610 and K.S.A. 21- 5611. Because we find that counsel was not ineffective for failing to notify Grant of a defense that was unavailable to him, we affirm.”
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.