HENSON v. STATE (2021)

Alex Henson appeals his convictions for sexual battery on his minor child, two counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition in front of his child, and providing obscene material to his child. He argues the trial court erred in admitting and publishing to the jury child pornography he showed to his child because it was not similar fact evidence as defined by section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (2020). The State argues Henson was charged with providing obscene material to his child and so admitting the videos and images that were shown to the child is relevant evidence to corroborate the child's testimony. We agree and reject Henson's argument to the contrary.

The child testified that Henson showed her the pornographic images and videos and then acted them out with her. In light of the charges and other evidence presented, the images and videos were admissible and did not need to be admitted as similar fact evidence under section 90.404(2).

We also affirm the trial court's ruling that the probative value of the child pornography outweighed the prejudice to Henson. While the introduction of the child pornography evidence was certainly harmful to Henson's case, little is more probative to the charge of providing obscene material to a minor than the obscene material itself. We reject Mr. Henson's other arguments on appeal without further discussion.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Ray, Winokur, and Long, JJ., concur.