Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

141 Ohio St. 3d 1452

State v. Martin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 28, 2015

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 2015-01-28

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 2018

6 state decisions

Relies on State v. Young · 184 Ohio App. 3d 39 - State v. Graves

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2015-01-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Montgomery App. No. 26033, 2014-OMÓ-3640. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 6 of the court of appeals’ entry filed November 6, 2014:

“With respect to R.C. 2907.323(A)(1), which proscribes the creation or production of nudity-oriented material involving a minor, which definition of nudity applies: the statutory definition (R.C. 2907.01(H)), or the narrower definition set forth in State v. Young, 37 Ohio St.3d 249, 525 N.E.2d 1363, which requires additional elements of ‘lewd depiction’ and ‘graphic focus on the genitals?’”
Pfeifer and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

¶2The conflict case is State v. Graves, 184 Ohio App.3d 39, 2009-Ohio-974, 919 N.E.2d 753.

/141/ohiost3d/1452 · .json · Public domain