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

Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322 (2026)

Pandering sexually oriented matter 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, record, photograph, film, develop, reproduce, or publish any material that shows a minor or impaired person participating or engaging in sexual activity, masturbation, or bestiality;

(2) Advertise for sale or dissemination, sell, distribute, transport, disseminate, exhibit, or display any material that shows a minor or impaired person participating or engaging in sexual activity, masturbation, or bestiality;

(3) Create, direct, or produce a performance that shows a minor or impaired person participating or engaging in sexual activity, masturbation, or bestiality;

(4) Advertise for presentation, present, or participate in presenting a performance that shows a minor or impaired person participating or engaging in sexual activity, masturbation, or bestiality;

(5) Knowingly solicit, receive, purchase, exchange, possess, or control any material that shows a minor or impaired person participating or engaging in sexual activity, masturbation, or bestiality;

(6) Bring or cause to be brought into this state any material that shows a minor or impaired person participating or engaging in sexual activity, masturbation, or bestiality ;

(7) Bring, cause to be brought, or finance the bringing of any minor or impaired person into or across this state with the intent that the minor or impaired person engage in sexual activity, masturbation, or bestiality in a performance or for the purpose of producing material containing a visual representation depicting the minor or impaired person engaged in sexual activity, masturbation, or bestiality.

(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 sexually oriented matter involving a minor or impaired person. If the offense involves a minor, a violation of division (A)(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), or (7) 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), (6), or (7) of this section is a felony of the third degree. 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 2907.321 or 2907.323 of the Revised Code, pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor or impaired person in violation of division (A)(5) of this section is a felony of the third degree.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 299 cases (108 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: State v. Tooley, 872 N.E.2d 894 (Ohio 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Tooley, 872 N.E.2d 894 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 38× “*367 {¶ 1} We accepted the state of Ohio’s discretionary appeal 1 and consolidated it with a certified conflict 2 to determine whether the portions of R.C. 2907.322 and 2907.323 that ban possession of child pornography are unconstitutionally over-broad in light of Ashcroft v.”
State v. Huffman, 847 N.E.2d 58 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 24× “322(A)(1) {¶ 11} R.C. 2907.322 prohibits the pandering of sexually oriented matter involving minors.”
State v. Magnone, 2016 Ohio 7100 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 11× “323 is preceded by § 2907.322, which proscribes “[p]andering sexually oriented matter involving a minor,” and followed by § 2907.”
State v. Mannarino, 2013 Ohio 1795 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 12× “322(A)(2); 101 counts of pandering sexually-oriented matter involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(1); 23 counts of illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material or performance in violation of R.”
State v. Fielding, 2014 Ohio 3105 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 15× “{¶ 49} As pertinent here, R.C. 2907.322(A) provides: No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved, shall do any of the following: (1) * * * [P]ublish any material that shows a minor participating or engaging in sexual activity, masturbation,…”
Huffman v. BRUNSMAN, 650 F. Supp. 2d 725 (S.D. Ohio 2008). · cites it 50× “7: BECAUSE OF ADVANCED AND WIDELY AVAILABLE COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, ORC § 2907.322 IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY BE ENFORCED BASED ON THE SUBJECTIVE BELIEF OF POLICE OFFICERS, JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, AND LAWYERS.”
State v. Meadows, 503 N.E.2d 697 (Ohio 1986). · cites it 13× “The children depicted were “minors” within the meaning of R.C. 2907.322, and the magazines were in the private possession and control of the appellee as proscribed by the statute.”
State v. Brady, 894 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 4× “321, and pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322. {¶ 25} R.C. 2907.321(A), prohibiting pandering obscenity involving a minor, provides: *380 {¶ 26} “No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved,…”
State v. Smith, 2017 Ohio 8680 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 9× “322(A)(5), felonies of the fourth degree. Mr. Smith initially pleaded not guilty.”
State v. Bell, 2024 Ohio 1502 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “Appellant created and published the video knowing that the character of the video included “a minor * * * participating or engaging in sexual activity * * * as prohibited by R.C. 2907.322(1).” Although we recognize appellant acted at the behest of her late husband, we conclude…”
State v. Polus (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 655 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 3× “41(B)(1) merely “requires a sentencing court to impose sentences for misdemeanor violations of R.C. 2907.322 (pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor), 2921.”
State v. Anderson, 784 N.E.2d 196 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “Anderson on 38 counts in case No. CR-394293: counts 1 through 18 charged him with pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor, in violation of R.”
Show all 299 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322(1) — 1 case
State v. Bell, 2024 Ohio 1502 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “Appellant created and published the video knowing that the character of the video included “a minor * * * participating or engaging in sexual activity * * * as prohibited by R.C. 2907.322(1).” Although we recognize appellant acted at the behest of her late husband, we conclude…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322(A) — 15 cases
State v. Brady, 894 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio 2008). “321, and pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322. {¶ 25} R.C. 2907.321(A), prohibiting pandering obscenity involving a minor, provides: *380 {¶ 26} “No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved,…”
State v. Bell, 2024 Ohio 1502 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “Appellant created and published the video knowing that the character of the video included “a minor * * * participating or engaging in sexual activity * * * as prohibited by R.C. 2907.322(1).” Although we recognize appellant acted at the behest of her late husband, we conclude…”
State v. Huffman, 847 N.E.2d 58 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). “322(A)(1) {¶ 11} R.C. 2907.322 prohibits the pandering of sexually oriented matter involving minors.”
State v. Fielding, 2014 Ohio 3105 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶ 49} As pertinent here, R.C. 2907.322(A) provides: No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved, shall do any of the following: (1) * * * [P]ublish any material that shows a minor participating or engaging in sexual activity, masturbation,…”
State v. Sanders, 2021 Ohio 2431 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322(A)(1) — 159 cases
State v. Huffman, 847 N.E.2d 58 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). “322(A)(1) {¶ 11} R.C. 2907.322 prohibits the pandering of sexually oriented matter involving minors.”
State v. Magnone, 2016 Ohio 7100 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “323 is preceded by § 2907.322, which proscribes “[p]andering sexually oriented matter involving a minor,” and followed by § 2907.”
State v. Mannarino, 2013 Ohio 1795 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “322(A)(2); 101 counts of pandering sexually-oriented matter involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(1); 23 counts of illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material or performance in violation of R.”
Huffman v. BRUNSMAN, 650 F. Supp. 2d 725 (S.D. Ohio 2008). “7: BECAUSE OF ADVANCED AND WIDELY AVAILABLE COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, ORC § 2907.322 IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY BE ENFORCED BASED ON THE SUBJECTIVE BELIEF OF POLICE OFFICERS, JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, AND LAWYERS.”
State v. Fielding, 2014 Ohio 3105 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶ 49} As pertinent here, R.C. 2907.322(A) provides: No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved, shall do any of the following: (1) * * * [P]ublish any material that shows a minor participating or engaging in sexual activity, masturbation,…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322(A)(1)(C) — 3 cases
State v. Dennison, 2022 Ohio 1961 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Stout, 2014 Ohio 1094 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Jacobson, 2025 Ohio 2849 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322(A)(2) — 34 cases
State v. Mannarino, 2013 Ohio 1795 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “322(A)(2); 101 counts of pandering sexually-oriented matter involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(1); 23 counts of illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material or performance in violation of R.”
State v. Smith, 2017 Ohio 8680 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “322(A)(5), felonies of the fourth degree. Mr. Smith initially pleaded not guilty.”
State v. Duhamel, 2015 Ohio 3145 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Balbi, 2015 Ohio 4075 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Fraley, 2022 Ohio 3270 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322(A)(3) — 2 cases
State v. Green, 2018 Ohio 2729 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Brown, 2024 Ohio 2372 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322(A)(5) — 111 cases
State v. Meadows, 503 N.E.2d 697 (Ohio 1986). “The children depicted were “minors” within the meaning of R.C. 2907.322, and the magazines were in the private possession and control of the appellee as proscribed by the statute.”
State v. Tooley, 872 N.E.2d 894 (Ohio 2007). “*367 {¶ 1} We accepted the state of Ohio’s discretionary appeal 1 and consolidated it with a certified conflict 2 to determine whether the portions of R.C. 2907.322 and 2907.323 that ban possession of child pornography are unconstitutionally over-broad in light of Ashcroft v.”
State v. Fielding, 2014 Ohio 3105 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶ 49} As pertinent here, R.C. 2907.322(A) provides: No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved, shall do any of the following: (1) * * * [P]ublish any material that shows a minor participating or engaging in sexual activity, masturbation,…”
State v. Smith, 2017 Ohio 8680 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “322(A)(5), felonies of the fourth degree. Mr. Smith initially pleaded not guilty.”
State v. Collier, 2011 Ohio 2791 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322(A)(5)(C) — 1 case
State v. Stout, 2014 Ohio 1094 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322(A)(6) — 4 cases
State v. Starcher, 2015 Ohio 5250 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Lee, 2021 Ohio 1158 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Taylor, 2024 Ohio 2107 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Schofield, 2018 Ohio 3617 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322(A)(l) — 1 case
State v. Perry, 2021 Ohio 1748 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322(B)(1) — 1 case
State v. Tooley, 872 N.E.2d 894 (Ohio 2007). “*367 {¶ 1} We accepted the state of Ohio’s discretionary appeal 1 and consolidated it with a certified conflict 2 to determine whether the portions of R.C. 2907.322 and 2907.323 that ban possession of child pornography are unconstitutionally over-broad in light of Ashcroft v.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322(B)(3) — 8 cases
State v. Tooley, 872 N.E.2d 894 (Ohio 2007). “*367 {¶ 1} We accepted the state of Ohio’s discretionary appeal 1 and consolidated it with a certified conflict 2 to determine whether the portions of R.C. 2907.322 and 2907.323 that ban possession of child pornography are unconstitutionally over-broad in light of Ashcroft v.”
State v. Brady, 894 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio 2008). “321, and pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322. {¶ 25} R.C. 2907.321(A), prohibiting pandering obscenity involving a minor, provides: *380 {¶ 26} “No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved,…”
Huffman v. BRUNSMAN, 650 F. Supp. 2d 725 (S.D. Ohio 2008). “7: BECAUSE OF ADVANCED AND WIDELY AVAILABLE COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, ORC § 2907.322 IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY BE ENFORCED BASED ON THE SUBJECTIVE BELIEF OF POLICE OFFICERS, JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, AND LAWYERS.”
State v. Zeifle, 2007-A-0019 (10-19-2007), 2007 Ohio 5621 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Hurst, 909 N.E.2d 653 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322(C) — 6 cases
State v. Castagnola, 2013 Ohio 1215 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Smith, 2021 Ohio 4234 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Rice, 2012 Ohio 2174 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Abraham, 2012 Ohio 4248 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Sweeney, 2023 Ohio 3854 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.322(b)(3) — 1 case
Huffman v. BRUNSMAN, 650 F. Supp. 2d 725 (S.D. Ohio 2008). “7: BECAUSE OF ADVANCED AND WIDELY AVAILABLE COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, ORC § 2907.322 IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY BE ENFORCED BASED ON THE SUBJECTIVE BELIEF OF POLICE OFFICERS, JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, AND LAWYERS.”
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.