This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: OSBORNE v OHIO No. 88-5986 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 495 U.S. 103; 110 S. Ct. 1691; 109 L. Ed. 2d 98; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2036; 58 U.S.L.W. 4467 December 5, 1989, Argued April 18, 1990, Decided PR IOR H ISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. D ISPOSIT ION: 37 Ohio St. 3d 249, 525 N.E. 2d 1363 , reversed and remanded. CASE SUM MARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner appealed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio affirming his conviction of possession or viewing of child pornography, in violation Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.323(A)(3) (Supp. 1989). OVERV IEW: Petitioner was convicted of violating Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.323(A)(3) (Supp. 1989), prohibiting possession or viewing of child pornography. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. The court rejected the contention that the U.S. Const. amend. I prohibited proscribing private possession of child pornography. Further, by narrowly construing the statute, the court determined it was not unconstitutionally overbroad. Finally, although the court also found scienter an essential element of the statute, it held that the state's failure to prove lewd exhibition and scienter was not plain error. The United State Supreme Court reversed. Although the Court found the statute was constitutional because of the state's compelling interest in safeguarding minors and the court could narrow the statute to avoid overbreadth, the Court held the U.S. Const. amend. XIV , Due Process Clause required the state to prove each element of the statute to sustain a conviction. OUTCOME: Judgment reversed and remanded, because even though the state could constitutionally proscribe possession and viewing of child pornography and a court could narrow the statute to avoid overbreadth, the Due Process Clause required the state to prove each element of the statute to sustain the conviction.required the state to prove each element of the statute to sustain the conviction....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 05/04/2010 for the course PLS 460 taught by Professor Lermack during the Spring '10 term at Bradley.
- Spring '10