In Illinois, a 32-year-old man had consensual sex with a 17-year-old girl. He filmed the sexual encounter. Under Illinois law, a 17-year-old girl can give consent to having sex, so the man did not violate the statutory rape law. However, he was charged with possession of child pornography because the Illinois statute defines child pornography as sexually explicit depictions of a child under 18. Does the man have any due process or equal protection arguments? How do you evaluate those arguments? See People v. Hollins, 971 N.E.2d 504 (Ill. 2012).

2 pages per question
1 source per question (see attachments for each source)
Question #1
In Illinois, a 32-year-old man had consensual sex with a 17-year-old girl. He filmed the sexual encounter. Under Illinois law, a 17-year-old girl can give consent to having sex, so the man did not violate the statutory rape law. However, he was charged with possession of child pornography because the Illinois statute defines child pornography as sexually explicit depictions of a child under 18. Does the man have any due process or equal protection arguments? How do you evaluate those arguments? See People v. Hollins, 971 N.E.2d 504 (Ill. 2012).

Question #2
It is generally true that for most purposes it is not a defense to a crime that the defendant was intoxicated, at least if the intoxication was voluntary. However, under some circumstances even voluntary intoxication might be relevant in a criminal prosecution. Remembering that the prosecution must prove the actus reus of a crime charged, how did voluntary intoxication affect the outcome in State v. Wells, 139 Cal. Rptr. 3d, 422 (Cal App. 2012)? What is the actus reus elements of the crime of DUI causing serious personal injury?

Last Completed Projects