The Iowa Supreme Court affirms the misdemeanor conviction of a Perry man on charges that he improperly sent a nude photograph of himself by text messaging to a 14 year old girl. State v. Canal, No. 07-1051. At the time, Jorge Canal was 18. Both Canal and the girl were high school students, and they were friends. Sexting is the process of sending nude photographs by text message.
Canal was found guilty in Dallas County District Court on a charge of knowingly disseminating obscene material to a minor in violation of Iowa Code section 728.2 (2005). A deferred judgment was imposed, one year probation was ordered, a two hundred fifty dollar civil penalty was to be paid, and Canal was directed to register as a sex offender. The deferred judgment was revoked when Canal violated probation. He was ordered to jail for nineteen days, was fined two hundred fifty dollars, and again, was required to register as a sex offender. An initial appeal based upon the deferred judgment was denied. The appeal decided on Friday, September 18, 2009, by the Iowa Supreme Court was initiated after the deferred judgment was revoked.
Canal reportedly sent two photographs. One of his face with the words, "I love you." The other photograph was of his penis. He contended that he sent the photographs only after his text message correspondent, identified in the opinion as C.E., asked him to send a nude photograph three or four times in the same "conversation". At trial C.E. testified that she considered the photograph to be a joke because other friends were doing it. She did not ask for the photograph from Canal as a means of exciting any feelings. She thought the photos Canal sent were deleted from her account, but they were found by her parents. Her father, who had been a reserve police officer, reported the photos to police, who investigated, and arrested Canal.
The Court finds that there was sufficient evidence by which the jury could find that Canal violated Iowa law and that the jury was properly instructed on community standards. The Court notes, ". . .[E]ven though another jury in a different community may have found this material not to be obscene, the evidence in this record was sufficient for this jury to determine, under its own community standards, that the material Canal sent to C.E. was obscene." The Court also rejects an argument by Canal that his trial lawyer was ineffective.
Recent Comments