A 22-year-old Greenville man was arrested Thursday and is being held without bond at the Pitt County Jail, accused of taking a sexually explicit photograph of a 2-year-old girl. Terrence Robinson Jr. was booked on a charge of second-degree sexual exploitation of a minor following the arrest by Greenville police.
According to court warrants cited by WITN, Robinson photographed a naked 2-year-old girl engaging in sexual activity in May 2026. He was arrested on Thursday and was scheduled to appear in court Friday. The warrants do not detail how investigators identified the alleged photo or whether Robinson had any relationship to the child's family, and those questions remain unanswered in the public record so far.
Robinson's charge, second-degree sexual exploitation of a minor, is defined under North Carolina law to include recording, photographing, filming, developing, or duplicating material depicting a child engaged in sexual activity, according to the text of North Carolina General Statutes § 14-190.17. Notably, the statute explicitly bars defendants from claiming a mistake about a child's age as a legal defense, meaning prosecutors must prove that the person knew the material's character or content and committed one of the statute's specified acts involving material depicting a minor engaged in sexual activity.
A Class E Felony With Years of Prison Exposure
The charge against Robinson is classified as a Class E felony in North Carolina, which carries a potential active prison sentence ranging from 15 to 63 months depending on a defendant's prior criminal history, per the Sparrow Law Firm. Sentencing severity in North Carolina depends on a defendant's prior criminal history, meaning the exact punishment Robinson could face if convicted would depend on factors not yet public.
Beyond incarceration, a conviction under this statute mandates registration on North Carolina's public Sex Offender Registry for up to 30 years, according to the Jetton & Meredith, PLLC law firm. That registration requirement can affect living situations, employment, and attendance at events involving children. Additionally, the available material does not establish whether statutory updates enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly in May 2024 require financial restitution for victims of first, second, or third-degree sexual exploitation of a minor.
Held Without Bond Amid Pretrial Rules
Robinson was taken to the Pitt County Jail and is being held without bond, per the seed reporting. His detention reflects a broader shift in how North Carolina courts handle severe felony allegations: the state's Pretrial Integrity Act of 2023 restricted magistrate authority to set bail for certain serious offenses, requiring formal judicial evaluation for high-severity cases, according to Ryan Willis Law PLLC. Judges consider the details of the case and exercise discretion before granting pretrial release under that framework.
Under standard North Carolina criminal procedure, individuals arrested on felony charges must receive a first appearance before a district court judge within 72 hours to review charges and pretrial release conditions, according to the UNC School of Government's North Carolina Prosecutors' Resource Online. That timeline lines up with Robinson's scheduled Friday court appearance, a day after his arrest.
Broader Context for the Case
The Greenville case comes amid broader attention to digital child exploitation reports. The article also raises the subject of law-enforcement caseloads.
The article discusses digital tips involving suspected child exploitation material, the SBI Computer Crimes Unit, and local police departments. Nationally, federal and local Internet Crimes Against Children task forces conducted nearly 347,000 investigations in 2025, resulting in more than 17,000 arrests, per the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Robinson's case remains in its early stages, and the charge against him is an allegation that has not been proven in court. Key details, including how investigators uncovered the alleged May photo and whether digital forensics turned up additional material, have not been made public.
