State v. Hodge, 2014 Ohio 1860

Hodge convicted in a bench trial of 12 counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor; merged to one count; sentenced to two years; designated a Tier II sex offender.
Evidence consisted of stipulated facts: images found on Hodge’s computer, downloaded by him after Miranda warnings, with admission of knowledge of the material’s character.
The State relied on Sullivan, Huffman, and Butler to argue that downloading constitutes “reproduction” under R.C. 2907.322(A)(1).
Hodge challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing downloading does not equal reproduction and suggesting §2907.322(A)(5) could apply.
On appeal, the court applied a standard of review for sufficiency, held Sullivan controlling, and affirmed the conviction; on sentencing, the court found unlikely rehabilitation and imposed imprisonment, denying community control; judgment affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict under §2907.322(A)(1)	State argued downloading constituted reproduction	Hodge argued downloading is not reproduction	Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed
Whether prison term was lawful given sentencing factors	State contends prison term appropriate under presumption	Hodge argues community control could be suitable	Prison sentence affirmed; court found factors did not support less serious finding

State v. Sullivan, 2011-Ohio-2976 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2011) (downloading/reproducing images supports conviction)
State v. Huffman, 2006-Ohio-1106 (1st Dist. Ohio 2006) (reproduction includes copying from the internet)
State v. Butler, 2009-Ohio-1866 (9th Dist. Ohio 2009) (discussion on reproduction of materials)