After a trial, the court considered whether a modified doll seized from the accused’s residence amounted to child pornography and whether the accused knowingly possessed it.
The judge found that the doll was a visual representation whose dominant characteristic was the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the sexual organ of a person under 18.
The judge rejected the accused’s evidence that he did not appreciate the doll’s childlike qualities and found beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the nature of the item.
The court also held that the narrow Sharpe exception for purely self-created, privately held expressive material did not apply because the doll was made from pre-existing objects created by others.
