State v. Henry
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the Court
*394YOUNG, J.
Defendant appeals his conviction for dissemination of obscene material.1 ORS 167.087(1). He was indicted, inter alia, for dissemination of magazines entitled “Bronco Buster” and “3-Way Cum.” He demurred to the indictment on the ground that the facts stated do not constitute an offense, because ORS 167.087 is unconstitutional. He stipulated that he had sold the magazines in question. The sole issue for the jury was whether the magazines were obscene within the definition of ORS 167.087(2). He was found guilty only in connection with the magazine “3-Way Cum.” On appeal he argues that…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Hamling v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Jacobellis v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Paris Adult Theatre I v. SlatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. RayOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- City of Portland v. AyersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
- State v. RayCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
- City of Portland v. AyersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
- City of Portland v. AyersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.