State v. Ross

The problem underlying this case is that the language of the statute used in the indictment has been judicially limited, and this limitation is not apparent from the language itself. The crime is not to knowingly possess or control obscene material, but rather it is to do so with the guilty intention of using, exhibiting, or selling it wrongfully. State v. Jacobellis, 173 Ohio St. 22, reversed on other grounds, Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184; State v. Saylor, 6 Ohio St. 2d 139. This mens rea *39requirement was inferred by reading the language in context with the rest of the statute, and the…