Sentences with phrase «lewd exhibition»

Osborne objected that the trial judge had not insisted that the government prove lewd exhibition and scienter as elements of his crime.

Moreover, there is no longstanding, commonly understood definition of «lewd» upon which the Ohio Supreme Court's construction might be said to draw that can save the «lewd exhibition» standard from impermissible vagueness.

«the possession or viewing of material or performance of a minor who is in a state of nudity, where such nudity constitutes a lewd exhibition or involves a graphic focus on the genitals, and where the person depicted is neither the child nor the ward of the person charged.»

In so doing, the Court, relying on the statutory exceptions, read § 2907.323 (A)(3) as only applying to depictions of nudity involving a lewd exhibition or graphic focus on a minor's genitals.

[Footnote 2/7] But it supplied no authoritative definition — a disturbing omission in light of the absence of the phrase «lewd exhibition» from the statutory definition section of the Sex Offenses chapter of the Ohio Revised Code.

'' [t] he context of the opinion indicates that the Ohio Supreme Court believed that «the term nudity,» as used in R.C. 2907.323 (A)(3), refers to a «lewd exhibition» of the genitals.»

In addition, whereas the Ohio Supreme Court's interpretation uses the «lewd exhibition of nudity» test standing alone, the New York law employed the phrase «lewd exhibition of

Thus, when the Ohio Supreme Court grafted the «lewd exhibition» test onto the definition of nudity, it was venturing into uncharted territory.

The Ohio Supreme Court provided few clues as to the meaning of the phrase «lewd exhibition of nudity.»

In Ferber, we affirmed a conviction under a New York statute that made it a crime to promote the «lewd exhibition of [a child's] genitals.»»

to the Ohio Supreme Court, in order to secure a conviction under § 2907.323 (A)(3), the State must prove both scienter and that the defendant possessed material depicting a lewd exhibition or a graphic focus on genitals.

Indeed, such a confused approach by the Ohio Supreme Court, referring in one part of its opinion to «lewd exhibitions of nudity» and in another to «lewd exhibitions of the genitals,» would create a great deal of uncertainty regarding the scope of § 2907.323 (A)(3), and likely would render that statute void for vagueness.

Not exact matches

§ 847.0135 (5)(d)(2008) excludes a mother breastfeeding her baby from the offense of lewd or lascivious exhibition using a computer.

Shayne Denarius Davis, 34, was arrested Feb. 2 and charged with lewd and lascivious conduct and exhibition for flashing a 15 - year - old girl on her way home from school in...

The court distinguished «child pornography» from «obscenity,» see 37 Ohio St. 3d at 257, 525 N.E. 2d at 1372, thereby implying that it did not believe that an exhibition was required to be «obscene» in order to qualify as «lewd.»