By: dmc-admin//July 23, 2001//
“Whistleman’s argument that the disks are not ‘pictorial reproductions’ because one cannot see the images of the children by looking at the disks is not persuasive. The words ‘or other’ before ‘pictorial reproduction’ indicate that the legislature meant that the preceding ‘videotape’ is included within the term “pictorial reproduction.” Yet one cannot see a visual image by looking at a videotape: the tape must be inserted into a VCR in order to produce a visual image on the screen. Nor do we find persuasive Whistleman’s argument that the computer disks store data, not images of children. A videotape also stores the data necessary to create a visual image rather than the visual image itself, similar to the way Whistleman describes a computer disk functioning. …
“We are satisfied that the language of Wis. Stat. § 948.12 conveys the legislature’s intent to penalize possession of computer disks that produce visual images on a computer screen of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, assuming the other conditions of the statute are met. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order excluding the prints made of those screen images and remand for further proceedings.”
Reversed.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist IV, La Crosse County, Mulroy, J., Vergeront, J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Daniel J. O’Brien, Madison; Loralee Clark, La Crosse
For Respondent: Michael J. Devanie, La Crosse