A Maryland man’s attempt to overturn his conviction for revenge porn was unsuccessful recently when Maryland’s appeals court ruled that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction.
Jury decision
A jury for the Circuit Court for Baltimore City convicted the man (the former boyfriend) of revenge porn, sentencing him to two years of incarceration with all but six months suspended and two years of supervised probation. He appealed.
Maryland’s Revenge Porn Law
Under Maryland law, revenge porn, or the nonconsensual distribution of private visual representations, is a misdemeanor. This crime is defined as knowingly distributing an intimate image of another person with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce, especially when the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Photos, video posted on escort services website
The court opinion identifies the woman in the case as “the Victim.”
The former boyfriend and the Victim were in a four-year relationship that started in 2016. The relationship ended when the former boyfriend found text messages on Victim’s phone and concluded that she had been unfaithful to him. The boyfriend “kicked her out of the house,” according to the court’s opinion. The Victim moved in with her mother.
According to the Victim, the former boyfriend would follow her, come by her mother’s house and make general statements about coming to her job, getting her fired and wishing that she would get everything coming her way. Gardener also sent a text message threatening to post her intimate photos on the “Porn Hub” website.
In August 2020, the Victim received about 50 text messages from unknown men propositioning her for sexual activities. She asked one of the men where he had gotten her information and he mentioned a website. This led her to discover that both intimate photos and a video of her were posted on an adult website promoting escort services. Her name, address and phone number were also posted. Victim concluded that the former boyfriend was responsible because he was the only with access to the images and other information including her current address.
Victim applied for a criminal charge against the former boyfriend with the District Court Commissioner. Gardener was charged with knowingly distributing Victim’s intimate images with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce Victim in violation of Maryland’s Revenge Porn statute.
The former boyfriend denied posting the images. He testified that his iCloud account was hacked and that he had lost his phone.
The boyfriend’s attorney argued that the State had not met its burden to prove the case because it did not provide forensic evidence proving the former boyfriend was the source of the images posted to the internet. The boyfriend argued that this left the jury with nothing other than Victim’s assumption that it was the boyfriend who had posted the images. The court denied the motion for acquittal.
Appeals court ruling and analysis
The appellate court held that the trial court had not made a mistake in deciding the matter.
Several questions were raised during the trial. Two of them focused on the admissibility of evidence and whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence.
The former boyfriend’s previous threats to Victim were considered relevant under Rule 5-404(b) of Maryland law, as they showed motive. The appeals court said there was no error in admitting this evidence.
The court also concluded the evidence supported the conviction under Maryland’s revenge porn statute.
The former boyfriend argued that the State was required to introduce direct digital forensic evidence to show that the images came from his electronic device. The court disagreed. It was not necessary to provide direct digital forensic evidence linking the images to the boyfriend’s device, the court said, noting that the revenge porn statute does not require proof of the method by which a defendant distributed an intimate photograph. As a result, the lack of digital evidence did not undermine the conviction. The court also noted that “distribute” is defined broadly and, as a result, is not limited to a particular method of distribution.
“Here, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the State presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that it was [the former boyfriend] that distributed Victim’s intimate images,” the court said.
“First,” the court noted, the “Victim testified that she saw her intimate images on the internet, images that she and Appellant possessed during their relationship.”””
“Second, after breaking up with Victim, Appellant threatened harm to Victim and to post the images on a pornographic website,” the court said.
“Third, Victim testified that she did not post the images herself,” the court said.
“Fourth, Appellant admitted that he had the images on his phone and in his iCloud account. From this evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that because Victim saw the images on the internet, they had been “distributed.” Further, as Appellant was the only other person who had access to the images, together with Victim’s personal contact information, and was motivated to harm Victim, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that it was [the former boyfriend] that posted the images,” the court said.
This case illustrates that revenge porn can have serious legal consequences. If you’re facing revenge porn charges, you should talk to a Maryland revenge porn attorney. Maronick Law, LLC is open during the pandemic and will continue to meet your Glen Burnie, Annapolis, Baltimore, Essex, Ocean City, Towson, White Marsh revenge porn criminal defense attorney needs. If you need an attorney to defend your rights over accusations of revenge porn, you should talk to an Ocean City revenge porn lawyer.
If you have access to Zoom, we can meet with you remotely. The consultation is free. You can contact the law office at 410-402-5571 or via the website.