Ls magazine torrent

---

See Oral Argument Audio at —, —, — Instead, it would mean he could be convicted of twelve counts of possession under subsection A. Ls magazine torrent Argument Audio at —

On appeal, Papol argues the trial court should have dismissed the eleven second or subsequent counts. We disagree and affirm.

The evidence at trial proved that, on October ls magazine torrent,Papol downloaded from the Internet to his computer twelve sexually explicit images of prepubescent girls. A grand jury indicted Papol on one count of possession of child pornography and eleven counts of possession of child pornography, second or subsequent violations. Papol also contends that, in any event, he did not ls magazine torrent a second or subsequent violation because he received the images during a single download.

For several reasons, we disagree. This analysis ls magazine torrent the underlying purpose of the statute to protect children from pornographers, pedophiles, and others who seek to take advantage of their vulnerabilities. The children in the images possessed by Papol were real children. Free Speech Coalition, U. Whether a recidivism statute requires evidence of prior violations or prior convictions is a straight-forward question of statutory interpretation.

After all, Papol was convicted of possessing—not downloading—child pornography. It should not matter that the images were downloaded from the Internet during a single download episode any more than it should matter if they ls magazine torrent arrived by mail in a single envelope.

Virginia courts look solely to the text of the statute for the answer. For example, in Thomas v. This subtle, but important, distinction has been recognized by Virginia courts in ls magazine torrent recidivism contexts. He committed the first violation when he possessed the first offending image. Each of the other images he possessed was a subsequent violation of the statute. Even if a separate conviction for the first violation is not necessary, Papol continues, he never actually committed a second or subsequent violation because he received the images during a single download.

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Joseph Alfonso PAPOL v. Decided: March 18, Present: FRANK, KELSEY and ALSTON, JJ. Patricia Palmer Nagel The Law Offices of Patricia Palmer Nagel, P. Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, on brieffor appellee.

When multiple images are downloaded on a single occasion, one of those images invariably constitutes the first image possessed, while all the others qualify as second or subsequent images possessed.