Applying the Blockburger test, we do not believe the acts for which Martin was convicted are the same in fact. The images of child pornography found on Martin’s computers were downloaded and saved at separate times. Moreover, these pictures involved the exploitation of different children. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted in a similar case: Even had [Defendant] downloaded all the image files in a very short period of time, the fact that there were more than 28 separate files supports a conclusion that he made a new decision to obtain each one. Every time he downloaded a new file, he recommitted himself to additional criminal conduct. Each decision to download more child pornography represented a new volitional departure. State v. Multaler, 252 Wis.2d 54, ¶ 58, 643 N.W.2d 437, 449 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 41.] Martin was charged and convicted for
holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment holding admission of videos containing child pornography was probative of intent to sexually assault a child holding a defendant found in possession of three or more copies of the same article of child pornography during a single episode may only be prosecuted for a single count of possession with intent to promote holding twentyeight charges against defendant for possession of child pornography were not multiplicious recognizing continuing harm from defendants knowing possession of child pornography