In this capital case, appellant challenged a pretrial ruling denying him copies of all computer and video images depicting child pornography seized from his home. Here, the appellate court issued a writ ordering the prosecution to turn over copies of the items in question. The statute prohibiting the distribution of the images was not intended to include the criminal action itself. If it did, there would be no conceivable way to prosecute or defend such an action. Further, requiring the defense to view and to commit to memory the images, as opposed to making copies of them, impacted appellants right to effective assistance of counsel.