Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2907 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321 (2026)

Pandering obscenity involving a minor or impaired person

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 22, 2019
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 201 - 132nd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(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 that has a minor or impaired person as one of its participants or portrayed observers;

(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 that has a minor or impaired person as one of its participants or portrayed observers;

(3) Create, direct, or produce an obscene performance that has a minor or impaired person as one of its participants;

(4) Advertise or promote for presentation, present, or participate in presenting an obscene performance that has a minor or impaired person as one of its participants;

(5) Buy, procure, possess, or control any obscene material, that has a minor or impaired person as one of its participants;

(6) Bring or cause to be brought into this state any obscene material that has a minor or impaired person as one of its participants or portrayed observers.

(B)(1) This section does not apply to any material or performance that is sold, disseminated, displayed, possessed, controlled, brought or caused to be brought into this state, 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, member of the clergy, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance.

(2) Mistake of age is not a defense to a charge under this section.

(3) In a prosecution under this section, the trier of fact may infer that a person in the material or performance involved is a minor or impaired person if the material or performance, through its title, text, visual representation, or otherwise, represents or depicts the person as a minor or impaired person.

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of pandering obscenity involving a minor or impaired person. If the offense involves a minor, a violation of division (A)(1), (2), (3), (4), or (6) of this section is a felony of the second degree. If the offense involves an impaired person, a violation of division (A)(1), (2), (3), (4), or (6) of this section is a felony of the third degree. A violation of division (A)(5) of this section is a felony of the fourth degree. If the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of this section or section 2907.322 or 2907.323 of the Revised Code, pandering obscenity involving a minor or impaired person in violation of division (A)(5) of this section is a felony of the third degree.

(D) As used in this section and sections 2907.322 and 2907.323 of the Revised Code, "impaired person" means a person whose ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 216 cases (104 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: State v. Maxwell, 2002 Ohio 2121 (Ohio 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Maxwell, 2002 Ohio 2121 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 27× “321(A)(6) demonstrates the clear intent of the General Assembly to impose strict liability on the act of bringing child pornography into the state—R.C. 2907.321, construed and applied. (No.”
State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St. 3d 254 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 24× “Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the inclusion of a knowledge requirement regarding the character of the material and the absence of a mental element elsewhere in R.C. 2907.321 reflect legislative intent to impose strict liability for the act of bringing child…”
State v. Horner, 2010 Ohio 3830 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 12× “We ignored the other offenses defined in R.C. 2907.321, such as creating 16 January Term, 2010 child pornography (R.”
State v. Lozier, 803 N.E.2d 770 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 7× “{¶ 27} In Maxwell, the court found that the knowledge element of R.C. 2907.321(A) was separated out in order to apply only to “the character of the material or performance involved,” noting that “knowledge is a requirement only for the discrete clause within which it resides.”
State v. Dalton, 793 N.E.2d 509 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 7× “7193”) with 10 counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321 and 20 counts of pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor in violation of R.”
State v. Brady, 894 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 5× “The Charges Against Brady {¶ 24} In the present case, the grand jury indicted Brady on multiple counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321, and pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor in violation of R.”
State v. Walls, 2018 Ohio 329 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “322(A)(1) ; and three counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor, violations of R.C. 2907.321(A)(3). Following a jury trial, Walls was convicted of all charges, save the pandering sexually oriented matter count, which was dismissed before trial.”
State v. Harrison, 2009 Ohio 3547 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 6× “04(B), a felony of the fifth degree; Count Five alleged pandering obscenity involving a minor, in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(5), a felony of the fourth degree; and Count Six alleged pandering obscenity, in violation of R.”
State v. Tooley, 872 N.E.2d 894 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 5× “If the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of this section or section 2907.321 or 2907.323 of the Revised Code, pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor in violation of division (A)(5) of this section is a felony of the third…”
State v. Howard, 2011 Ohio 3524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 9× “]” As used in R.C. 2907.321, “material” is broadly defined and “includes an image or text appearing on a computer monitor * * * or an image or text recorded on a computer hard disk[.”
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). · cites it 2× “1-01 (1976) (general obscenity statute); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.321 (A) (1982); Ore.”
State v. Taylor, 2024 Ohio 2107 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 17× “Background {¶ 2} Kyle Taylor was charged with seven counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor, violations of R.C. 2907.321(A)(1) and (C), second-degree felonies (Counts 7 through 12 and 19); six counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor, violations of R.”
Show all 216 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(A) — 13 cases
State v. Maxwell, 2002 Ohio 2121 (Ohio 2002). “321(A)(6) demonstrates the clear intent of the General Assembly to impose strict liability on the act of bringing child pornography into the state—R.C. 2907.321, construed and applied. (No.”
State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St. 3d 254 (Ohio 2002). “Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the inclusion of a knowledge requirement regarding the character of the material and the absence of a mental element elsewhere in R.C. 2907.321 reflect legislative intent to impose strict liability for the act of bringing child…”
State v. Lozier, 803 N.E.2d 770 (Ohio 2004). “{¶ 27} In Maxwell, the court found that the knowledge element of R.C. 2907.321(A) was separated out in order to apply only to “the character of the material or performance involved,” noting that “knowledge is a requirement only for the discrete clause within which it resides.”
State v. Horner, 2010 Ohio 3830 (Ohio 2010). “We ignored the other offenses defined in R.C. 2907.321, such as creating 16 January Term, 2010 child pornography (R.”
State v. Brady, 894 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio 2008). “The Charges Against Brady {¶ 24} In the present case, the grand jury indicted Brady on multiple counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321, and pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor in violation of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(A)(1) — 78 cases
State v. Horner, 2010 Ohio 3830 (Ohio 2010). “We ignored the other offenses defined in R.C. 2907.321, such as creating 16 January Term, 2010 child pornography (R.”
State v. Dalton, 793 N.E.2d 509 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “7193”) with 10 counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321 and 20 counts of pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor in violation of R.”
State v. Howard, 2011 Ohio 3524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “]” As used in R.C. 2907.321, “material” is broadly defined and “includes an image or text appearing on a computer monitor * * * or an image or text recorded on a computer hard disk[.”
State v. Ryan, 2018 Ohio 4739 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Hearing, 2023 Ohio 3704 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(A)(1)(3) — 1 case
State v. Anderson, 2012 Ohio 3245 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(A)(1)(C) — 6 cases
State v. Stout, 2014 Ohio 1094 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Burton, 2025 Ohio 2267 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
Sovel (S.D. Ohio 2025).
State v. Jacobson, 2025 Ohio 2849 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Harris, 2025 Ohio 4664 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(A)(2) — 11 cases
State v. Gilbert, 2018 Ohio 879 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Hearing, 2023 Ohio 3704 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Wilkie, 2017 Ohio 1487 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Lowe, 2017 Ohio 851 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Harkins, 2012 Ohio 4746 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(A)(2)(C) — 1 case
State v. Lucicosky, 2017 Ohio 2960 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(A)(3) — 10 cases
State v. Walls, 2018 Ohio 329 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “322(A)(1) ; and three counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor, violations of R.C. 2907.321(A)(3). Following a jury trial, Walls was convicted of all charges, save the pandering sexually oriented matter count, which was dismissed before trial.”
United States v. Kevin Davis, 751 F.3d 769 (6th Cir. 2014).
State v. Stiver, 2024 Ohio 65 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Clyde, 2017 Ohio 8205 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Benedict, 2022 Ohio 3600 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(A)(4) — 2 cases
State v. Daniels, 2025 Ohio 869 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Seymour, 2024 Ohio 5186 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(A)(5) — 99 cases
State v. Harrison, 2009 Ohio 3547 (Ohio 2009). “04(B), a felony of the fifth degree; Count Five alleged pandering obscenity involving a minor, in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(5), a felony of the fourth degree; and Count Six alleged pandering obscenity, in violation of R.”
State v. Horner, 2010 Ohio 3830 (Ohio 2010). “We ignored the other offenses defined in R.C. 2907.321, such as creating 16 January Term, 2010 child pornography (R.”
State v. Maxwell, 2002 Ohio 2121 (Ohio 2002). “321(A)(6) demonstrates the clear intent of the General Assembly to impose strict liability on the act of bringing child pornography into the state—R.C. 2907.321, construed and applied. (No.”
State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St. 3d 254 (Ohio 2002). “Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the inclusion of a knowledge requirement regarding the character of the material and the absence of a mental element elsewhere in R.C. 2907.321 reflect legislative intent to impose strict liability for the act of bringing child…”
State v. Dalton, 793 N.E.2d 509 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “7193”) with 10 counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321 and 20 counts of pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor in violation of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(A)(5)(C) — 1 case
State v. Lucicosky, 2017 Ohio 2960 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(A)(6) — 12 cases
State v. Maxwell, 2002 Ohio 2121 (Ohio 2002). “321(A)(6) demonstrates the clear intent of the General Assembly to impose strict liability on the act of bringing child pornography into the state—R.C. 2907.321, construed and applied. (No.”
State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St. 3d 254 (Ohio 2002). “Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the inclusion of a knowledge requirement regarding the character of the material and the absence of a mental element elsewhere in R.C. 2907.321 reflect legislative intent to impose strict liability for the act of bringing child…”
State v. Horner, 2010 Ohio 3830 (Ohio 2010). “We ignored the other offenses defined in R.C. 2907.321, such as creating 16 January Term, 2010 child pornography (R.”
State v. Lozier, 803 N.E.2d 770 (Ohio 2004). “{¶ 27} In Maxwell, the court found that the knowledge element of R.C. 2907.321(A) was separated out in order to apply only to “the character of the material or performance involved,” noting that “knowledge is a requirement only for the discrete clause within which it resides.”
State v. Taylor, 2024 Ohio 2107 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “Background {¶ 2} Kyle Taylor was charged with seven counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor, violations of R.C. 2907.321(A)(1) and (C), second-degree felonies (Counts 7 through 12 and 19); six counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor, violations of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(A)(I) — 1 case
State v. Ross, 2012 Ohio 6263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(B)(1) — 3 cases
State v. Brady, 894 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio 2008). “The Charges Against Brady {¶ 24} In the present case, the grand jury indicted Brady on multiple counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321, and pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor in violation of R.”
Doe v. Boland (In re Boland), 596 B.R. 532 (6th Cir. BAP 2019).
In re Boland (6th Cir. BAP 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(B)(3) — 3 cases
State v. Maxwell, 2002 Ohio 2121 (Ohio 2002). “321(A)(6) demonstrates the clear intent of the General Assembly to impose strict liability on the act of bringing child pornography into the state—R.C. 2907.321, construed and applied. (No.”
State v. Tooley, 872 N.E.2d 894 (Ohio 2007). “If the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of this section or section 2907.321 or 2907.323 of the Revised Code, pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor in violation of division (A)(5) of this section is a felony of the third…”
State v. Lee, 2021 Ohio 1158 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(C) — 8 cases
State v. Maxwell, 2002 Ohio 2121 (Ohio 2002). “321(A)(6) demonstrates the clear intent of the General Assembly to impose strict liability on the act of bringing child pornography into the state—R.C. 2907.321, construed and applied. (No.”
State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St. 3d 254 (Ohio 2002). “Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the inclusion of a knowledge requirement regarding the character of the material and the absence of a mental element elsewhere in R.C. 2907.321 reflect legislative intent to impose strict liability for the act of bringing child…”
State v. Young, 525 N.E.2d 1363 (Ohio 1988).
State v. Smith, 2025 Ohio 5381 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Rice, 2012 Ohio 2174 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.321(D) — 1 case
State v. Lee, 2021 Ohio 1158 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
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.