The accused was tried on charges of possessing child pornography and possessing it for the purpose of making it available through file sharing software.
The court relied on forensic computer evidence, the accused's admissions about device ownership and usage, and circumstantial evidence from file names, program settings, and access history to find that the accused knowingly possessed the files.
The court rejected both the alternate suspect theory and the contention that the downloads were accidental.
Applying the governing mens rea principles for file sharing cases, the court held that the accused knew, or was wilfully blind to the fact, that the software made the files available to others.
