Toggle navigation. Address People Company. Found 24 results for. William Saulsbury.
William K Saulsbury. Associated persons: Michael Patton , E Saulsbury.
2. Search Tips
Personal Information. Contact Information.
Family Data. Possible Owned Assets. William J Saulsbury , age William D Saulsbury , age Presumed owner of the real estate located at Hedgewick Dr , Newark. Associated persons: Joan M Saulsbury. William M Saulsbury , age Associated persons: William Griffin. Presumed owner of the real estate located at Masters Court , Easton. Associated persons: Kellie D Willey. William S Saulsbury , age Presumed owner of the real estate located at 22 Autumnwood Ct , Dover. William C Saulsbury , age William E Saulsbury , age Presumed owner of the real estate located at W Sands Dr , Peoria.
Associated persons: Scott Busch , Pamela Saulsbury.
Seaman, Neb. In holding that appearing in a film which involved minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct violated the statute, this court in State v. Jensen, Neb. The purpose of the statute is to eliminate the sexually explicit depiction and exploitation of children as defined. Reading the entire section, it is apparent the Legislature intended that the sexual nature of the photograph be determined not solely from the subjects of the picture, but also from the motives of the persons generating the picture.
The statute proscribes the visual depiction of a minor female's breasts or the developing breast area of a female child "for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification or sexual stimulation of one or more of the persons involved. The Legislature intended the statute to be read as referring to those "persons involved" in the publishing, directing, creating, providing, or in any manner generating any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct which has a child as one of its participants or portrayed observers.
The terms of the statute were meticulously defined. The statute provides notice that the visual depiction for sexual gratification of a female child displaying her breasts or the developing breast area will violate the statute. The foregoing interpretation is in accord with federal decisions ruling on the constitutionality of federal child pornography laws.
The standard for obscenity enunciated in Miller v. California, U. Ferber, U. The Court in Ferber required that legislation prohibiting child pornography be addressed to works that "visually depict sexual conduct by children below a specified age. Ferber involved the prosecution of a bookstore proprietor convicted of distributing sexually explicit materials involving minors, in violation of federal child pornography provisions. The Court did not address the issue of whether the intention of the producer or creator of the photographs was to be taken into account in determining the sexual nature of the picture.
Since Ferber, federal courts have dealt with the intention issue on several occasions. In defining "sexually explicit conduct," as used in 18 U.
See, U. Wiegand, F. Villard, F.
Arvin, F. Cross, F. In Wiegand, the court considered several depictions in separate photographs of two minor females aged 10 and In both instances, the court found that the exhibition was lascivious because the photographer posed them according to his own pedophilic lusts. The court noted that in regard to a year-old, it was unlikely she could have had any sexual intentions in her poses.
In Cross, the defendant fraudulently induced a photographer and the parents of minor children to take part in a scheme whereby the minors posed for nude photographs. The court noted that the pictures qualified as lewd under the child pornography statute, as defined by the act prior to amendment, even though the children were not portrayed as sexually coy or inviting, because the photographs displayed full frontal nudity of the girls and were arranged by defendant in order to be used to satisfy his sexual interests or those of other pedophiles.
In Villard, the defendant was convicted of transporting magazines with sexually explicit photographs of minors. Villard is similar to Ferber in that they both involve the prosecution of the person who distributes prohibited material and not the person taking the photograph. The court in Villard found that in determining whether a visual depiction constituted lascivious exhibition of the genitals, as prohibited under federal legislation, a court should look at the photograph rather than at the viewer and determine the intended effect and not the actual effect on the viewer.
2. Search Tips
Unlike Ferber and Villard, the identity of the photographer in the present case is apparent, and he is the subject of the prosecution. As stated in Arvin, child pornography can be prohibited even if not obscene. See, also, New York v. A determination of whether defendant took the pictures for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification or sexual stimulation should include a consideration of the factors enunciated in United States v. Dost, F.
- low cost criminal background search!
- National Therapist Certification Program;
- Browse Locations!
- William Saulsbury's Phone Number, Email, Address - Spokeo;
- minnesota drivers license dui written test?
- carroll county ga courthouse public records.
- apply for marriage license in pennsylvania.
Wiegand, supra, and U. Villard, supra. Dost set forth a number of factors to consider in determining whether there had been a depiction of lascivious exhibitions under the federal child pornography law, which factors are. Dost, and other cases adopting such factors, involved the meaning of the phrase "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.
However, the Nebraska statute is broader in that it also prohibits the depiction of a female's breasts if she is under the age of 18 years. Although a penal statute must be strictly construed, it should be given a sensible construction, and general terms should be limited in their construction and application so as to avoid injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. The Court in Ferber stated that the conduct prohibited must be sufficiently defined by applicable state law "as written or authoritatively construed.
North Carolina Digital Collections
The cases discussed above demonstrate the absurdity of a contrary interpretation. Any other construction of the Nebraska Child Pornography Prevention Act would render it ineffectual against a defendant who photographed a solitary child below the age of majority in various poses designed to satisfy the warped sexual lust of the photographer, because it would be absurd to believe the child depicted was in any manner receiving sexual gratification or sexual stimulation. As stated in U.
Examination of intent is necessary to determine whether sexual gratification was a motive in the display of the depicted minor's breasts or developing breast area. This intent is not determinable on the face of the record, but is triable under a plea of not guilty. We reverse the district court's judgment and remand the cause with directions. Saulsbury Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Vital Records and Probate Records
Enter your email. Saulsbury Annotate this Case. William C.