Court Rules Secretly Filming Naked 13 Year Old In Her Bedroom Isn't Child Porn

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that a hidden camera used on a 13-year-old girl does not meet the definition of porn.

Nashville, TN – The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 7 that a man who hid a video camera in the bedroom of a 13-year-old girl was not guilty of trying to make child pornography.

David Hall was 50 years old and living with a relative and her two young daughters in May of 2010 when the incident occurred, the Associated Press reported.

Court filings showed that Hall was helping the relative repair their flood-damaged home.

One morning, while the 13-year-old daughter was in the shower, Hall put a video camera on top of her dresser under some clothes.

When the girl returned to the bedroom – dressed – she immediately noticed the blinking red light of the camera, the Associated Press reported.

She took the camera and gave it to her mother who called the police and had Hall arrested.

A Nashville judge found Hall guilty of attempted especially-aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor in a 2015 bench trial, according to the Associated Press.

Hall was sentenced to serve 12 months of a four-year sentence with four years of probation.

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision.

But then state Supreme Court’s ruling on Jan. 7 overturned Hall’s conviction.

The five judges had a split decision, according to the Associated Press.

The three majority judges, who are women, found that Hall’s actions didn’t meet the state’s definition of child pornography which requires more than just nudity.

Supreme Court Justice Holly Kirby wrote in the majority opinion about whether images of the girl getting dressed would have been pornography had they been recorded.

"The evidence presented at trial shows at most that the defendant intended to produce material that would include images of the minor victim engaged in everyday activities ordinarily performed in the nude," she wrote, according to the Associated Press.

Kirby was joined in her opinion by Justices Cornelia Clark and Sharon Lee.

The dissenting judges said that the most important factor was Hall’s intent, according to the Associated Press.

Supreme Court Justice Roger Page argued that it wasn’t possible to know what the camera would have recorded.

Chief Justice Jeffrey Bivens joined Page in his dissent opinion.

The state of Tennessee has 90 days to file an appeal.

Comments (44)
No. 1-25
DSmom
DSmom

I wonder how those judges would have decided had it been their daughters.

LynnSB
LynnSB

WTF is wrong with these Judges -~~~ Are they all MORONS ??

OzCop
OzCop

At least two of those judges have some degree of common sense and common decency...I wonder if those female judges would have acted the same had it been one of their own daughters...how pathetic of these so called "judges."

ArizonaG30
ArizonaG30

Maybe they all film and don't want to go to jail when caught

Oldmp
Oldmp

Would the judges have voted the same way had it been them that were videoed?? I think not.