State tells court browsing plus device evidence shows dominion and supports convictions

Colin Hayes, representing the State, told the court that the totality of the evidence demonstrates intentional viewing and dominion over illicit images. "He intentionally downloaded [CSAM]" and, referring to Exhibit 39, Hayes said, "Viewing these images on your computer gives you dominion control over that image. You can zoom in. You can delete it. You can copy it."

Hayes also said the defendant's access method (allegedly via a Tor browser) and the presence of other phones containing illicit material supported the inference that viewing was intentional and that the defendant exercised control over the content. He cited legislative language that the creation of a viewing offense was not intended to limit possession prohibitions and relied on federal and out-of-state cases to frame dominion/control arguments.