Legal Opinion
State v. Tooley
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 25, 2007No. Nos. 2006-0105 and 2006-0216PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLanzinger, J.
*367{¶ 1} We accepted the state of Ohio’s discretionary appeal1 and consolidated it with a certified conflict2 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. Free Speech Coalition (2002), 535 U.S. 234, 122 S.Ct. 1389, 152 L.Ed.2d 403.
{¶2} We hold that R.C. 2907.322 and 2907.323 are not overbroad. The evidentiary inference that is permitted under R.C. 2907.322(B)(3) merely allows a fact-finder to consider circumstantial evidence to determine that the person depicted is a minor. The…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- State v. JenksOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- New York v. FerberSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- State v. BradyOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. HooverOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. NolingOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- State v. WarrenOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Monus v. DayOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.