Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33 (2026)

Exploitation of children; prohibitions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) No person shall, by any means including computer, cause, solicit or knowingly permit any child to engage in sexually explicit conduct or in the simulation of sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct.

(2) No person shall, by any means including computer, photograph, film, video tape or otherwise depict or record a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct or in the simulation of sexually explicit conduct.

(3) No person shall, by any means including computer, knowingly send, transport, transmit, ship, mail or receive any photograph, drawing, sketch, film, video tape or other visual depiction of an actual child engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

(4) No person shall, by any means including computer, receive with intent to distribute, distribute for sale, sell or attempt to sell in any manner any photograph, drawing, sketch, film, video tape or other visual depiction of an actual child engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

(5) No person shall, by any means including computer, knowingly possess or knowingly access with intent to view any photograph, drawing, sketch, film, video tape or other visual depiction of an actual child engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

(6) No person shall, by any means including computer, knowingly entice, induce, persuade, seduce, solicit, advise, coerce, or order a child to meet with the defendant or any other person for the purpose of engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

(7) No person shall by any means, including computer, knowingly entice, induce, persuade, seduce, solicit, advise, coerce or order a child to produce any visual depiction of adult sexual conduct or any sexually explicit conduct.

(8) The fact that an undercover operative or law enforcement officer posed as a child or was involved in any other manner in the detection and investigation of an offense under this section shall not constitute a defense to a prosecution under this section.

(9) For purposes of determining jurisdiction, the offense is committed in this state if all or part of the conduct described in this section occurs in the State of Mississippi or if the transmission that constitutes the offense either originates in this state or is received in this state.

Laws, 1979, ch. 479, § 2; Laws, 1988, ch. 558; Laws, 1995, ch. 484, § 2; Laws, 2003, ch. 562, § 2; Laws, 2005, ch. 467, § 1; Laws, 2005, ch. 491, § 1; Laws, 2007, ch. 376, § 1, eff. 7/1/2007.

Amended by Laws, 2013, ch. 412, SB 2197, 1, eff. 7/1/2013.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 95 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Shaffer v. State, 72 So. 3d 1090 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Shaffer v. State, 72 So. 3d 1090 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 193× “At the time the State indicted Shaffer in 2006, subsection eight of section 97-5-33 stated: "The fact that an undercover operative or law enforcement officer was involved in the detection and investigation of an offense under this section shall not constitute a defense to a…”

Shaffer v. State, 72 So. 3d 1070 (Miss. 2011). · cites it 66× “" Miss.Code Ann. § 97-5-33 (Rev.2006). Thus, the plain and unambiguous meaning of Section 97-5-33(8) as applied to the indictment in the present case would have denied Shaffer his theory of defense only if an undercover operative or law enforcement officer had been involved in…”

Hood v. State, 17 So. 3d 548 (Miss. 2009). · cites it 20× “Hood contends that the term "lascivious," as used by Section 97-5-31 of the Mississippi Code to define the term "sexually explicit conduct" under Section 97-5-33, is unconstitutionally vague and that his conviction therefore violates the constitutional guarantee of due process.”

Verenzo Cartrell Green v. State of Mississippi, 183 So. 3d 28 (Miss. 2016). · cites it 8× “Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33 (5) (Rev. 2014).”

Carreiro v. State, 5 So. 3d 1170 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 24× “Carrerio was subsequently indicted on August 3, 2004, for exploitation of a child under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-5-33(2) (Rev.2006) (count one) and for touching a child for lustful purposes under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-5-23 (Rev.”

Robert J. Dever v. State of Mississippi, 210 So. 3d 977 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 14× “2014) expressly enumerates exploitation of a child under section 97-5-33 (Rev. 2014) as a crime of violence.”

Renfrow v. State, 34 So. 3d 617 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 24× “Renfrew notes that section 97-5-33(1), (3), (6), and (7) contain a mens rea aspect, but section 97-5-33(5) does not contain a mens rea aspect.”

Britton v. State, 130 So. 3d 90 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “2006) (“Any person who violates any provision of Section 97-5-33 shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction .”

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). · cites it 2× “145c(3) (1982-1983); Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33 (4) (Supp. 1981); Mont.”

John Bartholomew Lowe v. State of Mississippi, 269 So. 3d 244 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 10× “ense," as he was charged with possession of child pornography; (2) "report to [his] probation officer as directed," as he did not report during the months of July, August, and September; (3) "permit home visits," as he was not home when officers visited; (4) "remain within the…”

Marion O' Bryan Strickland v. State of Mississippi, 220 So. 3d 1027 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “Thus, the supreme court affirmed the jury’s verdict convicting Hood under section 97-5-33(5). ¶ 48. Here, testimony established that the photograph of K.”

Michael Donaldson v. State of Mississippi, 262 So. 3d 1135 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “" Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33 (5). In child pornography cases, possession may be either actual or constructive.”

Show all 95 citing cases →

— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33(1) — 2 cases

Renfrow v. State, 34 So. 3d 617 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “Renfrew notes that section 97-5-33(1), (3), (6), and (7) contain a mens rea aspect, but section 97-5-33(5) does not contain a mens rea aspect.”

William Jeffrey Knight v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 2025).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33(2) — 4 cases

Carreiro v. State, 5 So. 3d 1170 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “Carrerio was subsequently indicted on August 3, 2004, for exploitation of a child under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-5-33(2) (Rev.2006) (count one) and for touching a child for lustful purposes under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-5-23 (Rev.”

Minor v. State, 904 So. 2d 1164 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).

Angelena Miller Tidwell a/k/a Angelena Tidwell v. State of Mississippi (Miss. Ct. App. 2020).

Frank Figueroa a/k/a Frank Ernast Figueroa v. State of Mississippi; (Miss. Ct. App. 2020).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33(3) — 7 cases

John Bartholomew Lowe v. State of Mississippi, 269 So. 3d 244 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). “ense," as he was charged with possession of child pornography; (2) "report to [his] probation officer as directed," as he did not report during the months of July, August, and September; (3) "permit home visits," as he was not home when officers visited; (4) "remain within the…”

Wendell Hayes v. State of Mississippi, 203 So. 3d 1144 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).

Cory Cotten v. State of Mississippi, 202 So. 3d 216 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).

Lowe v. State, 178 So. 3d 760 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

Wallace v. State, 982 So. 2d 1027 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33(5) — 23 cases

Verenzo Cartrell Green v. State of Mississippi, 183 So. 3d 28 (Miss. 2016). “Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33 (5) (Rev. 2014).”

Robert J. Dever v. State of Mississippi, 210 So. 3d 977 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). “2014) expressly enumerates exploitation of a child under section 97-5-33 (Rev. 2014) as a crime of violence.”

Hood v. State, 17 So. 3d 548 (Miss. 2009). “Hood contends that the term "lascivious," as used by Section 97-5-31 of the Mississippi Code to define the term "sexually explicit conduct" under Section 97-5-33, is unconstitutionally vague and that his conviction therefore violates the constitutional guarantee of due process.”

State v. Berger, 134 P.3d 378 (Ariz. 2006).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33(6) — 19 cases

Shaffer v. State, 72 So. 3d 1090 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “At the time the State indicted Shaffer in 2006, subsection eight of section 97-5-33 stated: "The fact that an undercover operative or law enforcement officer was involved in the detection and investigation of an offense under this section shall not constitute a defense to a…”

Shaffer v. State, 72 So. 3d 1070 (Miss. 2011). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 97-5-33 (Rev.2006). Thus, the plain and unambiguous meaning of Section 97-5-33(8) as applied to the indictment in the present case would have denied Shaffer his theory of defense only if an undercover operative or law enforcement officer had been involved in…”

Harris v. State, 107 So. 3d 1075 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013).

Westbrook v. State, 109 So. 3d 609 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013).

Tyrone Boyd v. State of Mississippi, 175 So. 3d 1 (Miss. 2015).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33(7) — 8 cases

Britton v. State, 130 So. 3d 90 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). “2006) (“Any person who violates any provision of Section 97-5-33 shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction .”

Strickland v. Darby, 135 So. 3d 234 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).

Marion O' Bryan Strickland v. State of Mississippi, 220 So. 3d 1027 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “Thus, the supreme court affirmed the jury’s verdict convicting Hood under section 97-5-33(5). ¶ 48. Here, testimony established that the photograph of K.”

Austin Kelly Kirk v. State of Mississippi (Miss. Ct. App. 2026).

William J. Miles v. State of Mississippi (Miss. Ct. App. 2020).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33(8) — 6 cases

William Allen Carpenter v. State of Mississippi (Miss. Ct. App. 2024).

Justin David Shaffer v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 2008).

Jeffory Chad Turner v. State of Mississippi (Miss. Ct. App. 2018).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33(9) — 1 case

Robert Mason a/k/a Robert Lanier Mason a/k/a Robert L. Mason v. State of Mississippi (Miss. Ct. App. 2023).

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.