In this Juvenile Court case, T.Q.B. was adjudicated delinquent of transmitting sexually explicit images by a minor after she “goaded” a 12-year-old “mentally challenged” female to lift up her shirt, exposing the lower portion of her breast while T.Q.B. videoed the act.
T.Q.B. posted the video on her Instagram account. As one would expect, it was quickly shared over social media with other students, causing the 12-year-old humiliation. After the video’s existence was reported to adults, T.Q.B. was Petitioned into Juvenile Court to address the allegations.
The specific statute at issue requires that any transmission of images that are called into question must involve a state of “nudity.”
After an adjudication hearing, the Juvenile argued that “the showing of the lower part of the breasts without revealing the nipple should not constitute nudity.” The Juvenile Court disagreed, concluding that the elements of the statute had been met by the conduct on the video. T.Q.B. appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
The Superior Court noted that the statute, in part, defined nudity as “the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple[.]”
“Therefore, by the plain language of the statute, the term does not require that the nipple must be exposed in order for an individual to have committed the offense.” And, since the Instagram video showed the 12-year-old lifting her shirt at T.Q.B.’s request, exposing the “bottom of her breast,” the “nudity” element was satisfied. In other words, if ANY portion of the breast which is located below the nipple is exposed, the nudity element is satisfied.
Lastly, the Superior Court also concluded that T.Q.B. was properly adjudicated of an additional count of Cyber Harassment since the video was a seriously disparaging statement or opinion that was “reasonably likely” to cause the 12-year-old substantial emotional distress.
Adjudication affirmed.
