When Can the Jury Consider Revenge Porn?

Clark v. Clark and Barrett, 2021-NCCOA-653 (2021)

• Facts: The Clarks were a married couple in North Carolina. In 2016, Husband began an affair with Ms. Barrett, in Virginia. That same year while home in North Carolina, Wife discovered text messages between Husband and Barrett. Husband finally left the marital home after Wife threatened to call Barrett and ask about the affair. Husband’s intimate relationship with Barrett went as far as conceiving a child with Barrett via in vitro fertilization. Things became contentious. In March of 2018, Wife began to interact with Husband on a social network named Kik, wherein Husband was using an alias. Husband, using the alias, sent a message to Wife containing a topless photo of Wife, and saying that this photo was being circulated in internet chat rooms. In May, Wife discovered the same photo on a Facebook “weight loss” advertisement, but with the nipples censored. Wife sued Husband for violating the revenge porn statute, NCGS 14-190.5A. Husband was found to have violated the statute. He appealed.

 

• Issue: Did the trial court err by submitting the issue of violating the revenge porn statute to the jury?

 

• Holding:

 

• Rationale: Husband argued that Wife had not proven with enough evidence that he had shared an image of intimate parts as defined by the statute. The revenge porn statute is violated, in essence, when a party knowingly discloses an image of another with intent to coerce, harass, intimidate, demean, or cause financial loss to the depicted person, or cause others (anyone else) to do any of the above. Also required is that the person in the image is identifiable, that an intimate part is exposed, and that the image was disclosed without consent. Husband’s actions on Kik were enough evidence to submit the question of whether he violated the statute to the jury.