Before you cite Wikipedia as a source,you should be aware that SR is one of very few unique exceptions to the intent requirement for criminal statutes. Also, the Wikipedia cite does not support your argument.

CP is not uniquely excepted -- you must have the intent to possess the content that is CP for it to be a crime. If some other person acquired CP and left it on your computer (for example, in a real case but not one of mine, a grandmother's computer was filled with CP left by her nephew was not guilty of possession of CP), you are not guilty of possession of CP. I won a case in Cali on these very grounds.

BUT...what I think you are referring to is that you do not need to intend for the content to be CP. That is, if you make a video which is, unbeknownst to you CP, the intent to possess that video is sufficient. In that regard, it CP possession is similar to SR in that it is "strict liability" with regard to one of the elements. However, it would not apply to the original situation--the witness does not intend to possess the video beyond the length of time necessary to get it to the police...and indeed, destruction of the video could be deemed destruction of evidence!

>Before you cite Wikipedia as a source

Are you serious? Look at your OP, your site was yourself:

>Source: I am a former criminal defense lawyer.

Additionally, your reply is regarding CP - to my post which was about SR. In another post I replied to a question about CP, in which I stated CP is not strict liability (unlike SR), that possession is a much more complex analysis than people think, and even noted the "blind eye doctrine".

>However, it would not apply to the original situation--the witness does not intend to possess the video beyond the length of time necessary to get it to the police

Speaking of citations...

In 2007 I wrote a draft Romeo and Juliet Law for the Florida Legislature (did not get passed), but it was presented at various CLEs. It was tailored to protect minors from ending up on the Sexual Offender List for life (among other post conviction punishments of minors). To that end minors are charged and convicted in Florida regularly for receiving unsolicited mass texts messages of other naked students in their school and the charges generally start with the student who whistleblows and sometimes ends with the victim charged. The facts are similar to your Park hypo where the possession was unintentional and the material is generally immediately turned over to authorities.

You better believe anyone turning in any video that includes a minor having sex, no matter how brief or unintentional, will immediately be read their Miranda rights and if a prosecutor with ice in their veins wants to charge you, they have the discretion and they will happily present evidence of a video that includes a minor having sex and evidence it was in your possession.

That is not the same thing as inadvertently recording a crime in a public place, which is what the grandparent was describing.

It is not the same thing but it demonstrates the same point that under these charges Criminal Intent does not need to be proved, unlike most any other criminal charge.

I suppose I did not need to use a different hypothetical, but I thought it would demonstrate the point about intent, bc in my hypothetical the Defendant could not have had intent when a minor produces an ID that says 18, ie. how can you intend to have sex with a minor if you believe the individual is 18? You can not intend it, at least legally and I specifically used a hypothetical that creates some culpability on the minor, producing a fake ID, but even that is not a defense because that only goes to intent, the actual crime still occurred.

Back to the original hypothetical, keep in mind we are not talking about recording a crime in a public place, it is much more specific we are talking about recording statutory rape in a public place - there is no defense regarding intent bc it is a strict liability crime. Moreover, it does not matter it was inadvertent, a mistake or anything else if the video exists and you recorded your intent, or lack thereof, is not a valid defense to a strict liability crimes.

Let me compare it to something else - let's say you have a charity collecting clothes. If somebody dropped a bag full of cocaine into one of your collection depos, and you called the police to say that this has happened, it is purely because of some little remains of common sense that you would not be charged with drugs possession. But under the letter of law, you could be.

If your camera records a rape of a child, then under the letter of law you are guilty of recording and possession of children pornography, no matter whatever you wanted to record it or not. Sure, most of the time judges will exhibit common sense about this, but it's a problem that if they wanted to, they could make you do jail time and it would be entirely within the law. Laws that are ambiguous and that can stretch depending how the police/judges see you,are the worst, it should be changed.