scienter requirement in Ohio

2007Id., citing Mishkin v. New York (1966), 383 U.S. 502 . rehearing denied 384 U.S. 934 . {¶ 24} In the matter currently under consideration, the state charged appellant with a violation of R.C. 2907.321 (A)(2), which provides: {¶ 25} "(A) No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved, shall do any of the following: {¶ 26} "(2) Promote or advertise for sale or dissemination; sell, deliver, disseminate, display, exhibit, present, rent, or provide; or offer or agree to sell, deliver, disseminate, display, exhibit, present, rent or provide, any obscene material t

2004We agree with the state that the language and import of this footnote must be understood in light of the court's earlier decision in State v. Burgin (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 354 , 384 N.E.2d 255 , in which it fully analyzed the scienter requirement.

2021Portage No. 2010-P-0044, 2012- Ohio-522, ¶114. “[T]he concept of reasonable probability literally embraces the concept of foreseeability.” Id.

2004Next, appellant contends that the state failed to prove that appellant "possessed" weapons under disability. {¶ 27} In reviewing whether evidence was sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court's function "is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 273 . "[T]he relevant inquiry does not involve how the appellate court might interpret the evidence." Id.

2018No. C–060238, 2007–Ohio–2247, ¶ 44–45, quoting Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 512 , 86 S.Ct. 958 (1966) (concluding the scienter requirement in R.C. 2907.322 “requires evidence that the offender knew that the image involved a real minor,” thus demonstrating that “the focus of the statute is on the ‘calculated purvey[or]’ of child pornography”). {¶64} In State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St.3d 254 , 2002-Ohio-2121 , 767 N.E.2d 242 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that the General Assembly plainly indicated a purpose to impose strict liability when it explicitly set forth a mental state in one part of

2018No. C–060238, 2007–Ohio–2247, ¶ 44–45, quoting Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 512 , 86 S.Ct. 958 (1966) (concluding the scienter requirement in R.C. 2907.322 “requires evidence that the offender knew that the image involved a real minor,” thus demonstrating that “the focus of the statute is on the ‘calculated purvey[or]’ of child pornography”). {¶64} In State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St.3d 254 , 2002-Ohio-2121 , 767 N.E.2d 242 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that the General Assembly plainly indicated a purpose to impose strict liability when it explicitly set forth a mental state in one part of

1998The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that "a scienter requirement may mitigate a law's vagueness, especially with respect to the adequacy of notice to the complainant that his conduct is proscribed." Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates , (1982), 455 U.S. 489 , 499 .

1995Hoffman Estates, supra, 455 U.S. at 499 , 102 S.Ct. at 1193 , 71 L.Ed.2d at 372 .

2023Lake No. 2021-L-019, 2021-Ohio-3657, ¶ 39 , quoting State v. Magnusson, 11th Dist.

2018Knox County, Case No. 17 CA 000019 16 {¶56} When a statute is challenged under the void-for-vagueness doctrine, “the court must determine whether the enactment (1) provides sufficient notice of its proscriptions to facilitate compliance by persons of ordinary intelligence and (2) is specific enough to prevent official arbitrariness or discrimination in its enforcement.” Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2006–Ohio–3799, ¶ 84, citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 (1983) {¶57} Upon review, we find that R.C. §2907.322 contains a “knowledge” requirement in the first p

2018Knox County, Case No. 17 CA 000019 16 {¶56} When a statute is challenged under the void-for-vagueness doctrine, “the court must determine whether the enactment (1) provides sufficient notice of its proscriptions to facilitate compliance by persons of ordinary intelligence and (2) is specific enough to prevent official arbitrariness or discrimination in its enforcement.” Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2006–Ohio–3799, ¶ 84, citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 (1983) {¶57} Upon review, we find that R.C. §2907.322 contains a “knowledge” requirement in the first p

2018No. C–060238, 2007–Ohio–2247, ¶ 44–45, quoting Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 512 , 86 S.Ct. 958 (1966) (concluding the scienter requirement in R.C. 2907.322 “requires evidence that the offender knew that the image involved a real minor,” thus demonstrating that “the focus of the statute is on the ‘calculated purvey[or]’ of child pornography”). {¶64} In State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St.3d 254 , 2002-Ohio-2121 , 767 N.E.2d 242 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that the General Assembly plainly indicated a purpose to impose strict liability when it explicitly set forth a mental state in one part of

2018No. C–060238, 2007–Ohio–2247, ¶ 44–45, quoting Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 512 , 86 S.Ct. 958 (1966) (concluding the scienter requirement in R.C. 2907.322 “requires evidence that the offender knew that the image involved a real minor,” thus demonstrating that “the focus of the statute is on the ‘calculated purvey[or]’ of child pornography”). {¶64} In State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St.3d 254 , 2002-Ohio-2121 , 767 N.E.2d 242 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that the General Assembly plainly indicated a purpose to impose strict liability when it explicitly set forth a mental state in one part of

2018Knox County, Case No. 17 CA 000019 16 {¶56} When a statute is challenged under the void-for-vagueness doctrine, “the court must determine whether the enactment (1) provides sufficient notice of its proscriptions to facilitate compliance by persons of ordinary intelligence and (2) is specific enough to prevent official arbitrariness or discrimination in its enforcement.” Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2006–Ohio–3799, ¶ 84, citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 (1983) {¶57} Upon review, we find that R.C. §2907.322 contains a “knowledge” requirement in the first p

2018It “leaves no discretion for the application and enforcement of the statute, describing with sufficient particularity what a person must do to commit a violation.” Id. {¶63} The Huffman court determined the scienter requirement in R.C. 2907.322, requiring a defendant to have “knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved,” eliminated any potential vagueness claim.

2007Id., citing Mishkin v. New York (1966), 383 U.S. 502 . rehearing denied 384 U.S. 934 . {¶ 24} In the matter currently under consideration, the state charged appellant with a violation of R.C. 2907.321 (A)(2), which provides: {¶ 25} "(A) No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved, shall do any of the following: {¶ 26} "(2) Promote or advertise for sale or dissemination; sell, deliver, disseminate, display, exhibit, present, rent, or provide; or offer or agree to sell, deliver, disseminate, display, exhibit, present, rent or provide, any obscene material t

2006"The scienter requirement vitiates any claim that the statute's purported vagueness could mislead a person of ordinary intelligence into misunderstanding what is prohibited." Werfel, supra, at ¶ 62 .

2004Falsification cannot occur when a person unintentionally makes a false statement. {¶ 39} Given the scienter requirement for falsification, the commission did not abuse its discretion, nor misapply Louisiana-Pacific, supra, by inquiring into claimant's "intent" when he filled out the application. {¶ 40} Moreover, the commission, in its DHO's order of December 8, 2000, which was administratively affirmed, set forth the evidence relied upon to support a finding that claimant did not knowingly or even intentionally submit false or misleading information on the employment application.

2003Dario, supra, at 238 .

1996Further, the Burgun court stated that “by *706 requiring that knowledge of the ‘content’ of obscene material is necessary, this court did not imply that there be either knowledge of the actual content or the fact that it was legally obscene.” Burgun at 363 , 10 O.O.3d at 491 , 384 N.E.2d at 262 , citing Rosen v. United States (1896), 161 U.S. 29 , 16 S.Ct. 434 , 40 L.Ed. 606 . 5 Therefore, we find that the scienter requirement does not require that the prosecution prove that the defendant knew that the material was obscene under the Miller test, but is satisfied when the defendant was in some

1996Further, the Burgun court stated that “by *706 requiring that knowledge of the ‘content’ of obscene material is necessary, this court did not imply that there be either knowledge of the actual content or the fact that it was legally obscene.” Burgun at 363 , 10 O.O.3d at 491 , 384 N.E.2d at 262 , citing Rosen v. United States (1896), 161 U.S. 29 , 16 S.Ct. 434 , 40 L.Ed. 606 . 5 Therefore, we find that the scienter requirement does not require that the prosecution prove that the defendant knew that the material was obscene under the Miller test, but is satisfied when the defendant was in some

1980Omaechevarria v. Idaho (1918), 246 U.S. 343 ; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman (1925), 266 U.S. 497 ; Gorin v. United States (1941), 312 U.S. 19 ; Screws v. United States (1945), 325 U.S. 91 ; American Communications Assn.

1980Omaechevarria v. Idaho (1918), 246 U.S. 343 ; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman (1925), 266 U.S. 497 ; Gorin v. United States (1941), 312 U.S. 19 ; Screws v. United States (1945), 325 U.S. 91 ; American Communications Assn.

1980Omaechevarria v. Idaho (1918), 246 U.S. 343 ; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman (1925), 266 U.S. 497 ; Gorin v. United States (1941), 312 U.S. 19 ; Screws v. United States (1945), 325 U.S. 91 ; American Communications Assn.

1980Omaechevarria v. Idaho (1918), 246 U.S. 343 ; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman (1925), 266 U.S. 497 ; Gorin v. United States (1941), 312 U.S. 19 ; Screws v. United States (1945), 325 U.S. 91 ; American Communications Assn.