Hedden v. State

The Court rejected defendants' argument that the children in the photograph were not victims within the meaning of Condition F, because the legislature's intent under OCGA § 17-10-6.2 c 1 F, was to protect children depicted in exactly the type of photographs that the defendants possessed, regardless of whether the defendants personally restrained the children.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following separate guilty plea hearings, Joseph Hedden and George Mahlon Hutton were convicted of sexual exploitation of children OCGA § 16-12-100 b 8 by knowingly possessing photographic images stored in their computers depicting a minor’s body engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Both defendants were sentenced to concurrent 15 year sentences with five years to serve and the balance probated. By separate appeals, Hedden and Hutto contend that the trial erred in interpreting OCGA § 17-10-6.2 c 1 F “Condition F”, one of six conditions authorizing the trial court to deviate from the mandatory minimum sentence in their cases,1 because the children whose photographs they possessed, some of whom were restrained while engaged in sexually explicit conduct, were not victims of such conduct within the meaning of Condition F which requires that “the victim not be physically restrained during the commission of the offense.” We granted Hutto’s motion to consolidate the appeals since they present the same issue for review. Finding that Hedden and Hutto possessed photographs of children victimized, as above, and that Condition F was not satisfied thereby barring a downward departure from mandatory minimum sentencing, we affirm. “The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo on appeal. Because the trial court’s ruling on a legal question is not due any deference, we apply the ‘plain legal error’ standard of review.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Sharma v. State , 294 Ga. App. 783, 784 670 SE2d 494 2008.

The record shows that these cases arise out of peer-to-peer police investigations in which computers and other electronic storage devices used by Hedden and Hutto were identified and seized upon validly executed search warrants as storing electronic images of child pornography in a manner to facilitate sharing the same with others. It is undisputed that certain of the photographs in both cases depict children who were physically restrained when they were photographed while engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Hedden v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report