Colorado’s second-highest court ruled for the first time on Thursday that a jury does not always need to view pornographic material to determine if it meets the criteria for obscenity.

Mesa County jurors found Shayla Ann Simpson guilty of child abuse and promoting obscenity to a minor. Prosecutors argued that Simpson allowed the child victim to watch pornography provided by her husband, Steven Rothbarth, who performed the same acts of sexual abuse on the victim. A jury separately convicted Rothbarth of numerous offenses for incest and child sex assault.

Jurors at Simpson’s trial learned about the websites the victim had visited and the titles of porn videos. The jury also watched the victim’s forensic interview in which she described the videos.

On appeal, Simpson contended there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction for promoting obscenity to a minor, based on the requirement that obscene materials lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” and appeal to a “prurient interest in sex” through “patently offensive representations.”

“Despite the jury having absolutely zero images provided to them surrounding what purported pornography or alleged obscene material the child viewed, it nonetheless found Mrs. Simpson guilty of the obscenity charge,” wrote defense attorney Lindsey Parlin. “Said images were necessary for the jury to make a determination and perform the necessary analysis.”

The testimony at trial “painted enough of a picture to uphold Defendant’s conviction,” responded Assistant Solicitor General Patrick A. Withers. The prosecution “had little need to subject the jury to these videos.”

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed with the government.

“Simpson is correct that no videos were admitted at trial. But she cites no authority requiring the prosecution to admit into evidence the precise material alleged to be obscene to carry its burden of proof,” wrote Chief Judge Ted C. Tow III in the Sept. 3 opinion.

He added that courts in other states have determined that it is not necessary for juries to view pornographic materials to decide if they are obscene.

Based on the evidence, “nothing in the record indicates that a reasonable person would have found that the videos had any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,” Tow wrote. “Rather, the description of the videos as incestuous, coupled with the testimony that they were shown to (the victim) as a precursor to Rothbarth sexually abusing her, indicates that their content was limited to a pornographic depiction of erotic behavior — not artistic expression.”

The case is People v. Simpson.