[The] circumstances [of the Defendant in this case] are distinguishable. C., never allowed the photographs to be seen by any other party and there was never a dispute with the involved minor about the photos.
Our Bexar County singles are in the 210 area code, and might live in these or other zip codes: 78264, 78224, 78221, 78223, 78235, 78252, 78242, or 78263 personals.
Here was the argument of defendant’s lawyer, Elizabeth Judd, distinguishing Kitchen: [S]he was a sixteen years of age when she moved into Appellant’s apartment where the two lived together for about eighteen months.
She testified that during those months, Appellant photographed her over sixty times in sexually explicit poses despite the fact she was under the age of eighteen.
In view of these circumstances, and the maxim “Cessante ratione legis cessat et ipsa lex” [“When the reason of the law ceases, the law itself also ceases”], we conclude that the reasons behind subsections 6312(b) and (d) are inapplicable to the photography in this case. Likewise, the Majority does not dispute that neither lack of consent, nor dissemination is an element under [the statute]….
Rather, the Majority deems the Commonwealth’s case legally insufficient because of the maxim cessante ratione legis cessat et ipsa lex.