(A) No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved, shall do any of the following:
(1) Create, reproduce, or publish any obscene material, when the offender knows that the material is to be used for commercial exploitation or will be publicly disseminated or displayed, or when the offender is reckless in that regard;
(2) Promote or advertise for sale, delivery, or dissemination; sell, deliver, publicly disseminate, publicly display, exhibit, present, rent, or provide; or offer or agree to sell, deliver, publicly disseminate, publicly display, exhibit, present, rent, or provide, any obscene material;
(3) Create, direct, or produce an obscene performance, when the offender knows that it is to be used for commercial exploitation or will be publicly presented, or when the offender is reckless in that regard;
(4) Advertise or promote an obscene performance for presentation, or present or participate in presenting an obscene performance, when the performance is presented publicly, or when admission is charged;
(5) Buy, procure, possess, or control any obscene material with purpose to violate division (A)(2) or (4) of this section.
(B) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under this section, that the material or performance involved was disseminated or presented for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose, by or to a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing bona fide studies or research, librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of pandering obscenity, a felony of the fifth degree. If the offender previously has been convicted of a violation of this section or of section 2907.31 of the Revised Code, then pandering obscenity is a felony of the fourth degree.
Last updated March 22, 2024 at 3:13 PM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Sovereign News Co. v. Falke, 448 F. Supp. 306 (N.D. Ohio 1977).
Sovereign News Co. v. Falke, 448 F. Supp. 306 (N.D. Ohio 1977). · cites it 26ד“While the appellant does not abandon his contention that the Ohio definition of obscenity, does not, in the first instance, comport with the requirements of Miller v.”
City of Cleveland v. Buckley, 588 N.E.2d 912 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1990). · cites it 19ד35(A)(2) provides that an employee of a bookstore engaged in selling materials, who, in the course of business does any of the acts prohibited by R.C. 2907.32, is presumed to have knowledge of the character of the material involved, if he has actual notice of the nature of such…”
State v. Harrison, 2009-Ohio-3547, 912 N.E.2d 1106. · cites it 6ד321(A)(5), a felony of the fourth degree; and Count Six alleged pandering obscenity, in violation of R.C. 2907.32(A)(5), a felony of the fifth degree.”
State v. Burks, 2018-Ohio-4777. · cites it 5ד) Thus, for purposes of R.C. 2907.32 and 2907.01, it is not relevant whether appellant believed the video aroused lust, or whether he posted the video in order to arouse lust in viewers.”
State v. Metz, 2019-Ohio-4054, 146 N.E.3d 1190. · cites it 5דPandering obscene material falls under R.C. 2907.32(A)(1). In this case, the indictment was specifically based on R.”
State v. White, 584 N.E.2d 1255 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1989). · cites it 11דThe record reveals only that the trial judge reread the prior instructions given to the jury, and it was specifically noted in the record what pages of the instructions were reread although no written instructions were furnished to the jurors.”
State ex rel. Pizza v. Strope, 560 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 5ד) Inasmuch as the scienter requirement of R.C. 2907.32 is dependent upon knowledge that the materials in question are obscene and that the injunctive relief available under R.”
State v. Keaton, 681 N.E.2d 1375 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1996). · cites it 6ד(“Midwest”) and James Keaton, appeal from their convictions for pandering obscenity in violation of R.C. 2907.32. On August 20, 1993, an undercover agent of the Fayette County Sheriffs Department entered the Lion’s Den Adult Bookstore in Jeffersonville, Ohio and purchased two…”
Pack v. City of Cleveland, 438 N.E.2d 434 (Ohio 1982). · cites it 4ד31, pertaining to disseminating matter harmful to juveniles, and R.C. 2907.32, dealing generally with pandering obscenity, was unconstitutional as being violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Loshin, 517 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1986). · cites it 6דC-800410, unreported, we held that a defendant could not be convicted of a separate offense for each obscene item sold by the defendant in a single transaction, because the legislature defined the offense in R.C. 2907.32 (A)(2) as the selling of “any obscene material,” not as…”
Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U.S. 619 (1981). · cites it 2דOn July 14, 1976, criminal complaints were issued against petitioners charging them with disseminating obscenity in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.32 (1975). The Municipal Court granted petitioners' motions to dismiss the complaints on the ground that petitioners had…”
State v. Kerrigan, 860 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2006). · cites it 2דCertainly, none of these materials can be characterized as possessed for a bona fide artistic, medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose as set forth in R.C. 2907.32(A)(3). {¶ 73} I believe the majority misconstrues State v.”
City of Cleveland v. Buckley, 588 N.E.2d 912 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1990). “35(A)(2) provides that an employee of a bookstore engaged in selling materials, who, in the course of business does any of the acts prohibited by R.C. 2907.32, is presumed to have knowledge of the character of the material involved, if he has actual notice of the nature of such…”
State v. White, 584 N.E.2d 1255 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1989). “The record reveals only that the trial judge reread the prior instructions given to the jury, and it was specifically noted in the record what pages of the instructions were reread although no written instructions were furnished to the jurors.”
State v. Keaton, 681 N.E.2d 1375 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1996). “(“Midwest”) and James Keaton, appeal from their convictions for pandering obscenity in violation of R.C. 2907.32. On August 20, 1993, an undercover agent of the Fayette County Sheriffs Department entered the Lion’s Den Adult Bookstore in Jeffersonville, Ohio and purchased two…”
State v. Loshin, 517 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1986). “C-800410, unreported, we held that a defendant could not be convicted of a separate offense for each obscene item sold by the defendant in a single transaction, because the legislature defined the offense in R.C. 2907.32 (A)(2) as the selling of “any obscene material,” not as…”
State v. Burks, 2018-Ohio-4777. “) Thus, for purposes of R.C. 2907.32 and 2907.01, it is not relevant whether appellant believed the video aroused lust, or whether he posted the video in order to arouse lust in viewers.”
State v. Metz, 2019-Ohio-4054, 146 N.E.3d 1190. “Pandering obscene material falls under R.C. 2907.32(A)(1). In this case, the indictment was specifically based on R.”
State v. Maynard, 726 N.E.2d 574 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1999).
State ex rel. Pizza v. Strope, 560 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio 1990). “) Inasmuch as the scienter requirement of R.C. 2907.32 is dependent upon knowledge that the materials in question are obscene and that the injunctive relief available under R.”
City of Cleveland v. Buckley, 588 N.E.2d 912 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1990). “35(A)(2) provides that an employee of a bookstore engaged in selling materials, who, in the course of business does any of the acts prohibited by R.C. 2907.32, is presumed to have knowledge of the character of the material involved, if he has actual notice of the nature of such…”
State v. Loshin, 517 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1986). “C-800410, unreported, we held that a defendant could not be convicted of a separate offense for each obscene item sold by the defendant in a single transaction, because the legislature defined the offense in R.C. 2907.32 (A)(2) as the selling of “any obscene material,” not as…”
State v. White, 584 N.E.2d 1255 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1989). “The record reveals only that the trial judge reread the prior instructions given to the jury, and it was specifically noted in the record what pages of the instructions were reread although no written instructions were furnished to the jurors.”
State v. Metz, 2019-Ohio-4054, 146 N.E.3d 1190. “Pandering obscene material falls under R.C. 2907.32(A)(1). In this case, the indictment was specifically based on R.”
State v. Kerrigan, 860 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2006). “Certainly, none of these materials can be characterized as possessed for a bona fide artistic, medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose as set forth in R.C. 2907.32(A)(3). {¶ 73} I believe the majority misconstrues State v.”
State v. Black, 876 N.E.2d 1255 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2007).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.32(A)(4): 4 cases
City of Cleveland v. Buckley, 588 N.E.2d 912 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1990). “35(A)(2) provides that an employee of a bookstore engaged in selling materials, who, in the course of business does any of the acts prohibited by R.C. 2907.32, is presumed to have knowledge of the character of the material involved, if he has actual notice of the nature of such…”
Sovereign News Co. v. Falke, 448 F. Supp. 306 (N.D. Ohio 1977). ““While the appellant does not abandon his contention that the Ohio definition of obscenity, does not, in the first instance, comport with the requirements of Miller v.”
State v. Harrison, 2009-Ohio-3547, 912 N.E.2d 1106. “321(A)(5), a felony of the fourth degree; and Count Six alleged pandering obscenity, in violation of R.C. 2907.32(A)(5), a felony of the fifth degree.”
State v. White, 584 N.E.2d 1255 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1989). “The record reveals only that the trial judge reread the prior instructions given to the jury, and it was specifically noted in the record what pages of the instructions were reread although no written instructions were furnished to the jurors.”
City of Cleveland v. Buckley, 588 N.E.2d 912 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1990). “35(A)(2) provides that an employee of a bookstore engaged in selling materials, who, in the course of business does any of the acts prohibited by R.C. 2907.32, is presumed to have knowledge of the character of the material involved, if he has actual notice of the nature of such…”
State v. Maynard, 726 N.E.2d 574 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1999).
State v. Kerrigan, 860 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2006). “Certainly, none of these materials can be characterized as possessed for a bona fide artistic, medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose as set forth in R.C. 2907.32(A)(3). {¶ 73} I believe the majority misconstrues State v.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.32(C): 3 cases
State v. Loshin, 517 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1986). “C-800410, unreported, we held that a defendant could not be convicted of a separate offense for each obscene item sold by the defendant in a single transaction, because the legislature defined the offense in R.C. 2907.32 (A)(2) as the selling of “any obscene material,” not as…”
Sovereign News Co. v. Falke, 448 F. Supp. 306 (N.D. Ohio 1977). ““While the appellant does not abandon his contention that the Ohio definition of obscenity, does not, in the first instance, comport with the requirements of Miller v.”
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.