## Facts

- In 1984, James Smith photographed three teenage girls in sexually explicit poses and various stages of nudity in Hawaii.
- Smith mailed the undeveloped film from Hawaii to a private film-development company in Maryland for processing.
- After developing the film and observing the images, the company contacted federal authorities.
- Postal inspectors obtained and executed a search warrant at Smith’s residence; agents recovered evidence supporting child-exploitation charges (and also a firearm, which was not part of the appeal).
- A federal grand jury indicted Smith on three counts under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) (inducing or coercing minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions) and three counts under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a) (mailing visual depictions in interstate commerce).
- Smith was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to imprisonment on one § 2251(a) count and probationary terms on remaining counts.
- Smith appealed, arguing (among other points) that the statutes did not reach his conduct because the film was undeveloped and he lacked intent to distribute the images beyond development.

## Issues

1. Whether undeveloped photographic film containing latent images qualifies as a “visual depiction” of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 and 2252.
2. Whether a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a) for mailing child-pornography material in interstate commerce requires proof that the defendant intended to distribute the images to others.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed Smith’s convictions under §§ 2251(a) and 2252(a).
- The court held that undeveloped film containing latent images can constitute a “visual depiction” within the meaning of the statutes.
- The court held that § 2252(a) does not require proof of intent to distribute to third parties; knowingly mailing the prohibited material in interstate commerce is sufficient.

## Legal Principles

- “Visual depiction” in the federal child-exploitation statutes includes photographic film that records sexually explicit images of minors, even if the images are not viewable until the film is developed.
- For § 2252(a), the government need not prove an intent to distribute; it must prove the defendant knowingly used the mails or interstate commerce to send material that meets the statutory definition.
- Statutory terms in the child-exploitation scheme are construed to prevent avoidance through technical characteristics of the medium or the private purpose for sending the material.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit sustained federal child-exploitation and mailing convictions where the defendant mailed undeveloped film containing sexually explicit images of minors to an out-of-state developer, holding that latent images are “visual depictions” and that § 2252(a) does not require intent to distribute beyond the act of interstate mailing.


United States v. Smith, 795 F.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1986)