Legal Opinion
State v. Frink
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided November 10, 1982No. B 61-049, CA A22050PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtButtler, P. J.
Defendant was charged with furnishing a photograph of a portion of the human body depicting nudity to three minors, contrary to ORS 167.065(1)(a), infra, which prohibits “furnishing obscene materials to minors.” The trial court sustained defendant’s demurrer on the ground that the statute is so overbroad 1 that it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution 2 and Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. 3 The state appeals. We affirm.
ORS 167.065(1) (a) provides:
“(1) A person commits the crime of furnishing obscene materials to minors if, knowing or having good…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Ginsberg v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Erznoznik v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Davis-Kidd Booksellers, Inc. v. McWherterTennessee Supreme Court · 1993
- M.S. News Co. v. CasadoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1983
- City of Portland v. GatewoodCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
- State v. HouseCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
- State v. WoodcockCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.