State v. Modeen, 86-1148
| Citation | 28 Ohio St.3d 64,502 N.E.2d 634 |
| Decision Date | 24 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1148,86-1148 |
| Parties | , 28 O.B.R. 164 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. MODEEN, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Certified by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
Ronald J. O'Brien, City Atty., for appellee.
David H. Bodiker, Columbus, for appellant. The judgment in this cause (case Nos. 85AP-907 and 85AP-908 has been certified to this court as being in conflict with the judgment of the court in State v. Meadows (Dec. 18, 1985), Hamilton App. No. C-850091, unreported, on the following issue: "Does the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit the state of Ohio from enacting a criminal statute which prohibits the private possession of child pornography?"
Based on State v. Meadows (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 43, 354, 503 N.E.2d 697, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
SWEENEY, J., not participating.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Young
...in two cases involving R.C. 2907.323(A)(3), both of which were resolved solely on the authority of Meadows. State v. Modeen (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 64, 28 OBR 164, 502 N.E.2d 634; State v. Robinson (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 65, 28 OBR 165, 502 N.E.2d 634. Thus, the question certified to this cour......
-
Savery v. State
...TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. sec. 43.26 (Vernon 1989) is constitutional. See Savery v. State, supra; see and compare State v. Madeen, 28 Ohio St.3d 64, 502 N.E.2d 634, 635 (1986). We conclude that the Ohio case of State v. Meadows, 28 Ohio St.3d 43, 503 N.E.2d 697 (1986) is a well reasoned case and......
-
Savery v. State
...defeat the State's vital and proper interest in curtailing the exploitation of young children. A parallel case is State v. Modeen, 28 Ohio St.3d 64, 502 N.E.2d 634, 635, (1986). Modeen, supra, addressed the issue of seizing child pornography from an individual person's home based on a statu......
-
State v. Wynn Bibbs and Phyllis Harris, 88-LW-2752
...exhibition of the genitals," as determined by the Court of Appeals of Franklin County and affirmed by the Supreme Court in State v. Modeen (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 64. Accordingly, we find that R.C. 2709.323(A)(1) and (B) neither unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and that the statute valid......