(1) It shall be unlawful for a person knowingly to (a) print, copy, manufacture, prepare, produce, or reproduce obscene material for the purpose of sale or distribution, (b) publish, circulate, sell, rent, lend, transport in interstate commerce, distribute, or exhibit any obscene material, (c) have in his or her possession with intent to sell, rent, lend, transport, or distribute any obscene material, or (d) promote any obscene material or performance.
(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to place an order for any advertising promoting the sale or distribution of material represented or held out to be obscene, whether or not such material exists in fact or is obscene. In all cases in which a charge for a violation of this section is brought against a person who cannot be found in this state, the executive authority of this state may demand extradition of such person from the executive authority of the state in which such person may be found.
(3) A person commits an offense of promoting obscene material if knowing its content and character he or she (a) disseminates for monetary consideration any obscene material, (b) produces, presents, or directs obscene performances for monetary consideration, or (c) participates for monetary consideration in that part of a performance which makes it obscene.
(4) Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1939–2002 · leading case:
State v. Harrold, 593 N.W.2d 299 (Neb. 1999).
State v. Harrold, 593 N.W.2d 299 (Neb. 1999).
· cites it 7× “Harrold was, pursuant to jury verdict, adjudged guilty in the Lancaster County Court of producing or distributing obscene material, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-813 (1) (Reissue 1995), and the county court fined Harrold $1,000.”
State v. Harrold, 585 N.W.2d 532 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 16× “The State and Harrold stipulated, as they are free to do as trial strategy, that the jury could perform its function by viewing exhibit 2, less than the whole. It is also clear under the statute and cases that on appeal, the appellate court must review the entire work in…”
State v. Embassy Corp., 340 N.W.2d 160 (Neb. 1983).
· cites it 5× “It was charged with exhibiting two obscene films on July 6, 1979, at its theater, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-813 (1) (Reissue 1979).”
Dutiel v. State, 284 N.W. 321 (Neb. 1939).
· cites it 6× “1938, in the county aforesaid and within the corporate limits of the City of Omaha aforesaid, then and there being did violate Section 28-813, Compiled Statutes of Nebraska, for 1929 in that he did unlawfully loiter about, patrol, beset and picket, by means of carrying banners…”
Main Street Movies, Inc. v. Wellman, 557 N.W.2d 641 (Neb. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-813 (Reissue 1995) makes it unlawful and a Class I misdemeanor for one to, among other things, possess “with intent to sell [or] rent.”
State v. Haltom, 642 N.W.2d 807 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 3× “§ 28-813 (Reissue 1995) provides in part: (1) It shall be unlawful for a person knowingly to (a) print, copy, manufacture, prepare, produce, or reproduce obscene material for the purpose of sale or distribution, (b) publish, circulate, sell, rent, lend, transport in interstate…”
State v. Skolnik, 358 N.W.2d 497 (Neb. 1984).
· cites it 2× “The defendant, William Skolnik, was convicted on two counts of distribution of obscene material in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-813 (Reissue 1979). On May 5,1983, an Omaha Municipal Court judge placed him on probation for 1 year and ordered him to pay a fine of $500 in the…”
Dickens v. State, 296 N.W. 869 (Neb. 1941).
· cites it 4× “” The attempt was to charge a crime under section 28-813, *168 Comp. St. 1929, being one of the “picketing” provisions.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-813(1) — 3 cases
State v. Harrold, 593 N.W.2d 299 (Neb. 1999).
“Harrold was, pursuant to jury verdict, adjudged guilty in the Lancaster County Court of producing or distributing obscene material, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-813 (1) (Reissue 1995), and the county court fined Harrold $1,000.”
State v. Embassy Corp., 340 N.W.2d 160 (Neb. 1983).
“It was charged with exhibiting two obscene films on July 6, 1979, at its theater, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-813 (1) (Reissue 1979).”
State v. Harrold, 585 N.W.2d 532 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998).
“The State and Harrold stipulated, as they are free to do as trial strategy, that the jury could perform its function by viewing exhibit 2, less than the whole. It is also clear under the statute and cases that on appeal, the appellate court must review the entire work in…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-813(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Harrold, 585 N.W.2d 532 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998).
“The State and Harrold stipulated, as they are free to do as trial strategy, that the jury could perform its function by viewing exhibit 2, less than the whole. It is also clear under the statute and cases that on appeal, the appellate court must review the entire work in…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-813(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Harrold, 593 N.W.2d 299 (Neb. 1999).
“Harrold was, pursuant to jury verdict, adjudged guilty in the Lancaster County Court of producing or distributing obscene material, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-813 (1) (Reissue 1995), and the county court fined Harrold $1,000.”
State v. Harrold, 585 N.W.2d 532 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998).
“The State and Harrold stipulated, as they are free to do as trial strategy, that the jury could perform its function by viewing exhibit 2, less than the whole. It is also clear under the statute and cases that on appeal, the appellate court must review the entire work in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.