State v. Warth, 36964
| Decision Date | 17 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 36964,36964 |
| Citation | 179 N.E.2d 772,173 Ohio St. 15 |
| Parties | , 18 O.O.2d 203 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WARTH, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Wright, Harlor, Morris, Arnold & Glander, Columbus, for appellant.
Arthur O. Fisher, City Prosecutor, Henry W. Phillips and Edward J. Duffy, Jr., Dayton, for appellee.
Section 2905.342, Revised Code, making it a misdemeanor to have in one's possession an obscene motion picture film, without reference to knowledge or scienter on the part of an accused, is unconstitutional. City of Cincinnati v. Marshall, 172 Ohio St. 280, 175 N.E.2d 178; Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 80 S.Ct. 215, 4 L.E.2d 205.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
ZIMMERMAN, J., sitting in the place and stead of WEYGANDT, C. J.
RADCLIFF, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of ZIMMERMAN, J.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitney v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco
...that the ordinance in question imposed absolute liability on defendant upon mere proof of possession * * *.' In State v. Warth (1962) 173 Ohio St. 15, 179 N.E.2d 772, the conviction of the defendant who, as manager of a theatre, did "unlawfully exhibit, or have in his possession, or under h......
-
City of Youngstown v. DeLoreto
...Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 80 S.Ct. 215, 4 L.Ed.2d 205; State v. Griffith, 174 Ohio St. 553, 190 N.E.2d 907; State v. Warth, 173 Ohio St. 15, 179 N.E.2d 772; State v. Jacobellis, 173 Ohio St. 22, 179 N.E.2d 777; and Cincinnati v. Marshall, 172 Ohio St. 280, 175 N.E.2d 178. Counsel f......
-
State v. Guerrieri
...Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 80 S.Ct. 215, 4 L.Ed.2d 205; State v. Griffith, 174 Ohio St. 553, 190 N.E.2d 907; State v. Warth, 173 Ohio St. 15, 179 N.E.2d 772; State v. Jacobellis, 173 Ohio St. 22, 179 N.E.2d 777; and City of Cincinnati v. Marshall, 172 Ohio St. 280, 175 N.E.2d 178. D......
-
State v. Mazes
...205; City of Cincinnati v. Marshall, 172 Ohio St. 280, 175 N.E.2d 178; State v. Wetzel, 173 Ohio St. 16, 179 N.E.2d 773; State v. Warth, 173 Ohio St. 15, 179 N.E.2d 772; and State v. Griffith, 174 Ohio St. 553, 190 N.E.2d On this question the Supreme Court of Ohio observed in its opinion in......