State v. Lee, 2021 Ohio 1158

April 2019 search of defendant Gary D. Lee Jr.’s living area produced a micro‑SD card found among his personal items; Lee conceded the card belonged to him.
The card contained 10,657 images; two images formed the basis of the charged counts: (1) a male toddler with his hand inside a woman’s sheer panties, and (2) an Asian girl the state estimated to be 12–14 engaged in a sexual act with an adult.
Detectives and the BCI examiner could not identify the images’ origin, could not prove Lee viewed the images, and could not definitively establish the girl’s actual age; a motion in limine excluded other card images from evidence.
A jury convicted Lee of two counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor (possession) and two counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor (importing); the importing and possession counts were merged at sentencing.
On appeal Lee challenged sufficiency and manifest weight as to (a) whether the second-image subject was a minor, (b) whether he knew the images’ content, and (c) whether he brought or caused the images to be brought into Ohio.
The appellate court affirmed the possession convictions (finding circumstantial proof adequate for age and knowledge) but reversed and vacated the importing convictions for insufficient evidence that Lee brought or caused the images to be brought into Ohio; case remanded for resentencing on possession counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the second image depicts a minor	Image permits the statutory permissive inference that the person depicted is a minor	Testimony about age was speculative; no proof of actual age	Affirmed: sufficient circumstantial evidence; jury could infer minor under Tooley and R.C. 2907.322(B)(3)
Whether Lee knew the character/content of the images (knowledge/possession)	Lee’s admitted ownership of the micro‑SD card permits inference he knew the card’s contents	No direct evidence he viewed or knew the files; card hosted thousands of images	Affirmed: ownership of the storage device is circumstantial evidence from which jury could infer knowledge
Whether Lee "brought or caused to be brought" the images into Ohio (importing element)	Images likely electronically obtained and therefore could have been brought into Ohio; card found in his Ohio residence supports inference	No evidence of images’ origin or that Lee transported/imported them into Ohio	Reversed/vacated: insufficient evidence that Lee brought or caused the images to be brought into Ohio; importing convictions vacated

State v. Tooley, 872 N.E.2d 894 (Ohio 2007) (permissive inference allows circumstantial proof that an image depicts a real child; virtual images distinguished)
State v. Maxwell, 767 N.E.2d 242 (Ohio 2002) (importation clause treated with strict liability as to knowledge; state must prove images were brought into Ohio)
State v. Jenks, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (circumstantial evidence may prove elements of an offense)
State v. Treesh, 739 N.E.2d 749 (Ohio 2000) (circumstantial evidence has same probative value as direct evidence)
State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency review from manifest‑weight review)
State v. Wac, 428 N.E.2d 428 (Ohio 1981) (legislative omission of a mental state in one part of a statute can indicate intent to impose strict liability in that part)