Constitutionality.

- Definition of material targeted in O.C.G.A. § 16-12-102 does not involve "legislative overkill"; the definition employs a narrowly crafted adaptation of the current definition of adult obscenity announced by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973). American Booksellers v. Webb, 919 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 941, 111 S. Ct. 2237, 114 L. Ed. 2d 479 (1991).

O.C.G.A. § 16-12-102 covers only material unprotected to minors and is not so indeterminate that the statute unduly chills protected expression. American Booksellers v. Webb, 919 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir. 1990).

"Obscene" work viewed "as a whole."

- The O.C.G.A. § 16-12-103(a)(1) charge against the defendant was based on defendant's exhibiting to a minor an allegedly pornographic motion picture, and the jury was allowed to view a videotape of this motion picture; but at some point during the showing of this film, defense counsel stipulated that the film was sexually explicit, and the remainder of the film was not shown to the jury, as a result of this truncation of the jury's view of the film, there was insufficient evidence under which the jury could have found defendant guilty of this charge since, in order to be adjudged obscene, the work must depict sexually explicit nudity and be harmful to minors; in order to be adjudged harmful to minors, the work must meet the three-part test set out in O.C.G.A. § 16-12-102(1)(A), (B), and (C) and in order to determine whether the work meets the tests set out in subparagraphs (A) and (C), the work must be viewed "as a whole." Hunter v. State, 257 Ga. 571, 361 S.E.2d 787 (1987).

Materials "harmful to minors."

- In a prosecution for exhibiting harmful material to a minor, pursuant to the statutory definition, the question for the jury was whether the materials in question were "harmful to minors" under the "prevailing standards in the adult community" and testimony of a defense witness that the materials were not in fact harmful was irrelevant. Hollis v. State, 215 Ga. App. 35, 450 S.E.2d 247 (1994).

Watching sexually explicit videotapes with minor.

- In a prosecution for child molestation, based on defendant's forcing a minor to watch sexually explicit videotapes with the defendant, the state was not required to prove that the tapes were "obscene" and "harmful to minors." Stroeining v. State, 226 Ga. App. 410, 486 S.E.2d 670 (1997).

Cited in American Booksellers Ass'n v. Webb, 590 F. Supp. 677 (N.D. Ga. 1984); Greulich v. State, 263 Ga. App. 552, 588 S.E.2d 450 (2003).

Protection of minors.

- Public libraries may be required by legislation to take appropriate action to protect minors from exposure to materials which fall within the definition of harmful to minors. 1995 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U95-24.