State v. Helgoth
Supreme Court of Missouri
1Opinion of the Court
GUNN, Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction for abuse of a child, § 568.060, RSMo 1978.1 In light of defendant’s challenges to the validity of that statute, we have jurisdiction of this appeal. Mo. Const, art. V, § 3. We affirm.
Defendant was convicted of photographing a child less than seventeen years old engaging in a “prohibited sexual act” within the meaning of § 568.060. He took posed photographs of a girl under seventeen, focusing on her uncovered breasts and vagina. That section, as pertinent, makes it illegal to photograph a child less than seventeen years old engaging in “nudity, if…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- New York v. FerberSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Commonwealth v. OakesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- State v. DuggarSupreme Court of Missouri · 1991
- State v. FosterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
- State v. JeffreySupreme Court of Missouri · 2013
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of Missouri · 2002
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.