## Facts

- Marshall C. Hollins, age 32, engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with A.V., who was 17 years old.
- Illinois law set the age of consent for sexual activity at 17, so the sexual relationship itself was lawful.
- Hollins used his phone to take photographs depicting sexual intercourse between himself and A.V.
- At A.V.’s request, Hollins emailed the photos to A.V.
- A.V.’s mother saw the email and the attached images, recognized Hollins’s email address, and reported the matter to police.
- Hollins was interviewed by police and admitted he took the photographs while knowing A.V. was under 18.
- The State charged Hollins under Illinois’s child-pornography statute (720 ILCS 5/11-20.1) based on producing and disseminating pornographic images depicting a person under 18.
- After a stipulated bench trial, Hollins was convicted on three counts of child pornography and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.
- Hollins appealed, arguing the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because the images depicted otherwise lawful sexual conduct with a 17-year-old.
- The appellate court affirmed, and the Illinois Supreme Court allowed further review.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois’s child-pornography statute is unconstitutional as applied, under substantive due process and the Illinois Constitution’s privacy provision, when the images depict consensual sex that is lawful because the depicted person is 17.
2. Whether the statute violates equal protection by treating adults in lawful sexual relationships with 17-year-olds differently based on the statute’s use of 18 as the age cutoff for pornographic depictions.
3. What level of scrutiny applies to these as-applied constitutional claims, and whether the statute satisfies that review.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the appellate court and the circuit court, leaving Hollins’s convictions and sentence in place.
- The court applied rational-basis review because Hollins did not show a suspect classification or a fundamental right to create or distribute sexually explicit images of a minor.
- The court held the statute was constitutional as applied: setting 18 as the minimum age for pornographic depictions was a reasonable legislative line tied to the State’s interest in preventing sexual exploitation of minors.
- The court rejected the argument that criminalizing the creation and transmission of the images effectively criminalized Hollins’s lawful private sexual relationship; the law targeted the making and dissemination of child pornography, not consensual sex itself.
- The court rejected the Illinois privacy-claim theory on these facts, concluding that the privacy provision did not bar criminalization of producing pornographic depictions of a 17-year-old, even if created in a private setting.
- The court rejected the equal-protection challenge, concluding the classification drawn by the statute (under 18 for pornographic depiction) was rationally related to legitimate state goals.

## Legal Principles

- An as-applied constitutional challenge asks whether a statute is unconstitutional in the specific factual setting of the defendant’s conduct, not whether the statute is invalid in all circumstances.
- When neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right is implicated, a statute is reviewed under rational-basis review and will be upheld if it is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest.
- A legislature may set different age thresholds for different regulated conduct; the age of consent for sexual activity and the minimum age for pornographic depiction need not match to satisfy due process or equal protection.
- A state has a legitimate interest in preventing sexual exploitation of minors and in restricting the creation and circulation of sexually explicit images of persons under 18.
- The production and dissemination of sexually explicit images depicting a minor may be punished even when the underlying sexual activity is lawful under age-of-consent rules.
- Under rational-basis review, a defendant’s claim of unfairness based on the mismatch between lawful sex (age 17) and unlawful depiction (under 18) does not establish a constitutional violation where the legislature could reasonably choose the higher age line for pornography.

## Conclusion

People v. Hollins held that Illinois may constitutionally apply its child-pornography statute to a defendant who photographed and emailed sexually explicit images depicting his consensual intercourse with a 17-year-old, even though the sexual relationship itself was lawful; applying rational-basis review, the Illinois Supreme Court found the statute reasonably related to the State’s interest in preventing exploitation of minors and rejected as-applied due process, privacy, and equal-protection challenges, affirming the convictions and sentence.


People v. Hollins, 361 Ill. Dec. 402, 971 N.E.2d 504 (2012)