{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

PLS 460 OSBORNE v OHIO

PLS 460 OSBORNE v OHIO - OSBORNE v OHIO No 88-5986 SUPREME...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
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 PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. DISPOSITION: 37 Ohio St. 3d 249, 525 N.E. 2d 1363 , reversed and remanded. CASE SUMMARY 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). OVERVIEW: 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
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
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.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}