Legal Opinion
State v. Mauer
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided November 15, 2007No. A05-460PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HANSON, Justice.
We are asked to decide whether the provision within Minn.Stat. § 617.247, subd. 4(a) (2006) (the “child pornography statute”), making it a crime to possess child pornography if the possessor has “reason to know” that the work involves a minor, requires proof of a constitutionally adequate element of scienter. Following a bench trial, the district court found appellant Helmut Horst Mauer guilty on three counts of possession of a pornographic work involving a minor because Mauer had reason to know that performers in the videos he possessed would be children. Mauer…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- New York v. FerberSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Smith v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Coates v. City of CincinnatiSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Ginsberg v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- State v. RickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne RiggsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
- Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- State v. PeckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
- Beardsley v. GarciaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.