By Joshua Wood
Intentionally viewing child sexual abuse material on a phone can violate a probation condition prohibiting its possession, even without proof that the user separately saved the material.
That is the holding of Commonwealth v. Walrond, No. 24-P-710, decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court on October 6, 2026. The court affirmed a probation violation based on evidence that the defendant intentionally viewed prohibited material found in his phone’s cache.
The decision has an important limit. The court expressly declined to decide whether the same evidence would necessarily support a new criminal conviction for possession of child sexual abuse material, commonly called child pornography. A probation violation involves a different burden of proof.
The case requires careful attention to what digital evidence establishes, how intentional viewing can constitute possession, and the particular condition the probationer allegedly violated.
1. The Probation Condition Prohibited Possession
In September 2022, Charles Walrond pleaded guilty to possession and dissemination of child sexual abuse material under G. L. c. 272, §§ 29C and 29B.
He received three years of probation. His conditions prohibited possession of images or videos containing child sexual abuse material and required him to permit probation officers to inspect and search his phone and laptops for that material.
The condition at issue prohibited possession. It did not separately state that he could not view the material.
In October 2023, a probation officer obtained Walrond’s phone and contacted a Boston police detective. After obtaining a search warrant, police conducted a forensic extraction using Cellebrite software.
The resulting evidence presented two questions: whether Walrond intentionally viewed prohibited material and whether that viewing constituted possession under his probation condition.
2. A Cached File Does Not Necessarily Establish That the User Viewed It
The forensic software identified forty images and five video recordings as potentially containing child sexual abuse material. A detective confirmed that three images and two recordings contained such material. The parties did not dispute the nature of those confirmed files.
The files were located in the phone’s Chrome and Telegram caches.
A cache stores data that an application or browser can use again, often to load content more quickly. The testimony established that material could enter a cache automatically, without a user deliberately opening or viewing each file.
The detective acknowledged that a file’s presence in the cache did not itself establish that the user clicked on it, enlarged it, or otherwise exercised control over it. He was uncertain whether the user had to see an image for it to enter the cache.
The defense expert explained that Telegram could automatically store images and videos posted in a chat room the user entered. According to that testimony, storage could occur even when the user did not click on or view the files.
The expert also explained that, depending on the website and browser settings, a webpage could place images in a browser cache even if those images appeared farther down the page than the user scrolled.
The expert further testified that clicking on an image would create a thumbnail. The extraction report contained no thumbnails.
That evidence supported a significant distinction between finding a file on a device and establishing that the user knowingly viewed it.
3. The Court Relied on Evidence Beyond the Cache
The judge did not find intentional viewing merely because the files existed on the phone.
The browser history also contained two entries associated with teenage pornography. The judge interpreted those entries as evidence that Walrond had deliberately searched for such material and considered that history together with the prohibited files in the cache.
The Appeals Court upheld that inference. It also considered Walrond’s prior conviction for possession of child sexual abuse material when evaluating his explanation that the files had arrived without his knowledge while he was seeking adult pornography.
The court recognized that automatic storage without viewing was technically possible. It nevertheless concluded that the combined evidence permitted the judge to find intentional viewing under the standard governing a probation violation.
The ruling therefore does not establish that every cached file was deliberately viewed. Nor does it treat a search associated with teenage pornography, standing alone, as proof of possession of illegal material. The finding rested on the evidence considered together in this probation proceeding.
For the defense, the distinction is practical. An expert may establish that an application can store unseen material. Counsel must also address the other evidence from which the judge might infer what happened on the particular device.
4. Intentional Viewing Can Constitute Possession Under a Probation Condition
After upholding the finding of intentional viewing, the Appeals Court addressed whether that conduct amounted to possession.
The court concluded that it could.
Its reasoning focused on knowledge and control. A person who intentionally brings an image onto a phone’s screen can exercise control over that image, even without taking an additional step to save it in a separate folder.
The court drew support from decisions in other jurisdictions recognizing that intentionally accessing and viewing prohibited material can establish possession. It also applied the familiar principle that possession requires knowledge together with the ability and intention to control.
The qualification is essential: the court’s analysis concerned material the person knew about and intended to view.
An unseen file stored automatically presents a different evidentiary question. In Walrond’s case, however, the judge permissibly found intentional viewing, and the Appeals Court held that the evidence supported a willful violation of the condition prohibiting possession.
5. A Probation Violation Is Different from a New Criminal Conviction
At a probation violation hearing, the Commonwealth must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence. That means showing that the violation more likely than not occurred.
A new criminal prosecution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Appeals Court expressly identified that distinction. It did not decide whether evidence of intentional viewing alone would necessarily sustain a criminal prosecution under G. L. c. 272, § 29C.
The court also identified a potential difference in what must be proved. For this probation violation, the judge needed to find that Walrond possessed some prohibited material. Depending on the allegations in a criminal prosecution, the Commonwealth might need to establish possession of particular images, which the court recognized could be more difficult.
Accordingly, Walrond should be read as a decision about the probation condition and evidentiary record before the court. It does not eliminate the separate analysis required when defending a new possession charge.
6. The Judge Continued Probation and Added a Restriction
The judge found a violation but did not revoke Walrond’s probation.
Instead, probation continued to its original end date of September 20, 2025, with an added condition prohibiting pornography. The Appeals Court affirmed the December 29, 2023 order finding the violation.
The opinion also emphasized that clearer conditions would have been beneficial, including language expressly addressing viewing as well as possession.
For someone facing a probation surrender involving digital evidence, the starting point is the condition actually in effect when the alleged conduct occurred. Counsel must then examine what the Commonwealth claims happened and what the forensic evidence supports.
A careful review should distinguish material identified by software from material confirmed by an examiner, automatic storage from deliberate interaction, and evidence of general browsing from evidence of knowingly viewing the prohibited material.
Those distinctions must be evaluated alongside the full record and the applicable burden of proof.
Q and A
1. Can viewing child sexual abuse material violate a probation condition prohibiting possession?
Yes. In Walrond, the Appeals Court held that intentional viewing on a phone could constitute possession for purposes of the probation condition. The evidence supported a finding that the defendant knowingly and intentionally viewed the prohibited material.
2. Does a file in a phone’s cache prove that the user saw it?
Not necessarily. The testimony in this case established that applications and browsers could store material automatically without the user viewing each file. The judge relied on additional evidence when finding intentional viewing.
3. Must the Commonwealth prove that the person clicked “save” or created a separate folder?
The court did not require that proof to establish this probation violation. It concluded that intentional viewing could provide the knowledge and control necessary for possession under the condition.
Whether the evidence supports a new criminal conviction requires a separate analysis.
4. What is the burden of proof at a Massachusetts probation violation hearing?
The Commonwealth must establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence. That is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which applies to a new criminal prosecution.
5. Did Walrond decide that intentional viewing always proves criminal possession?
No. The court expressly left open whether the evidence would necessarily support a criminal prosecution under G. L. c. 272, § 29C. It noted the higher burden of proof and the potential need to establish possession of particular images.
6. Was Walrond’s probation revoked because of this finding?
No. The judge continued probation through its original end date and added a condition prohibiting pornography. The Appeals Court affirmed the finding that he had violated probation.
Conclusion
Commonwealth v. Walrond gives intentional viewing legal significance under a probation condition prohibiting possession. It also recognizes that files can enter a device’s cache without being viewed. The outcome depends on the evidence of knowledge and intent, the language of the condition, and the governing burden of proof.
A forensic extraction requires careful interpretation. The defense must examine how the files arrived, what the records reveal about the user’s conduct, and whether the Commonwealth’s conclusions are supported by the evidence.
If you or a family member is facing a Massachusetts probation surrender or criminal charge involving alleged child sexual abuse material, call Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP. We can review the probation conditions, examine the forensic evidence, and assess whether expert analysis is needed. Your defense should address what the Commonwealth can actually prove, and under which legal standard. Call us today to discuss the allegation and prepare a defense before the hearing.