Mahoney

People v. Mahoney

Good Law
163 Cal. Rptr. 3d 468·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 835·220 Cal. App. 4th 781·2013 WL 5648729
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 17, 2013E055162California7,230 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ramirez, J.

A jury convicted defendant, Clark Alexander Mahoney, Jr., of possessing child pornography or child erotica. (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a).) He was granted probation and appeals, claiming there was insufficient evidence that the crime occurred within the statute of limitations, there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, section 311.11, subdivision (a) is void for vagueness and the trial court erroneously failed to give the jury a unanimity instruction. We reject his contentions and affirm, while directing the trial court to correct errors in the minutes of the sentencing hearing that the parties agree need to be corrected.

Facts

On January 4, 2010, defendant lived alone at his home, where he kept, inter alia, the four computers discussed below. By way of stipulation, the parties agreed to the chain of custody of those computers from the time of their seizure from defendant’s house to the time they were analyzed by the prosecution and defense experts.

The prosecution expert testified that Internet Explorer automatically logs in to Internet history every Web page the computer user goes to, and saves into temporary Internet files the images on every Web page…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.