## Facts

- The federal government prosecuted James William Smith for knowingly possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).
- Smith owned a computer kept in his residence, and his roommates, Elizabeth Penix and Joshua Jolly, also had access to it.
- Investigators found 26 pornographic files on the computer; 19 of the files had been previewed before download.
- Computer experts testified that the downloading had to be intentional, rather than accidental or automatic.
- The files’ names included terms such as “child,” “pre-teen,” or specific ages, and anyone reading the names or previewing the files would understand they depicted children engaged in sexual activity.
- Employment records ruled out Penix as the person who downloaded the files.
- Jolly denied any knowledge of the files or the software used to download them, though the evidence showed no special skill was needed to download the files.
- Smith did not testify. Penix and Smith’s parents testified that Smith was at his parents’ house, and therefore away from the computer, on the specific dates the defense claimed the files were downloaded.
- The jury convicted Smith, but the district court granted Smith’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal, reasoning it was just as likely that Jolly downloaded the files.
- The government appealed the judgment of acquittal.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith knowingly possessed child pornography on a computer he owned but shared with roommates, such that the district court erred by granting a Rule 29 judgment of acquittal.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment of acquittal.
- The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Smith knowingly possessed the child-pornography files.
- The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with reinstating the jury’s verdict.

## Legal Principles

- On review of a Rule 29 judgment of acquittal, the question is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.
- A court reviewing sufficiency may not reweigh evidence, reassess witness credibility, or choose among competing reasonable inferences; those are tasks for the jury.
- To prove knowing possession under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), the government must show the defendant knowingly possessed material containing child pornography that had been transported in or affected interstate or foreign commerce.
- Possession may be actual or constructive; constructive possession may be shown through ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband or over the place where it is found.
- When a computer is accessible to more than one person, the government may prove knowledge and control through circumstantial evidence linking the defendant to the files (for example, evidence of intentional downloading, previews of files, or file names that clearly describe illegal content).
- The government is not required to rule out every possible innocent explanation or prove that no one else could have committed the offense; the existence of an alternative possible downloader does not by itself make the evidence insufficient.

## Conclusion

Because the computer belonged to Smith, the files were intentionally downloaded and often previewed, and the file names plainly signaled child sexual content, the jury had enough evidence to infer that Smith knowingly possessed the files even though his roommates also had access; the district court therefore erred by setting aside the guilty verdict under Rule 29.


United States v. Smith, 739 F. 3d 843 (2014)