State v. Martin, 18 N.E.3d 799

Defendant Terry Lee Martin Sr., age 51, secretly hid an iPod and recorded an 11‑year‑old girl undressing and showering in his home; the video captured her breasts, pubic area, and buttocks.
Recording was discovered when others used Martin’s iPod; victim was unaware she was being recorded.
Martin was indicted under R.C. 2907.323(A)(1) (illegal use of a minor in nudity‑oriented material — creation/production) and R.C. 2923.24(A) (possession of criminal tools); he waived a jury trial.
Trial evidence consisted of stipulations (victim’s age, recording, lack of consent, not for bona fide purpose) and the video; parties agreed the primary dispute was legal: the meaning of “nudity.”
Martin argued that, under Young and Osborne, ‘‘nudity’’ must mean a lewd exhibition or a graphic focus on the genitals and that his recording did not meet that narrower standard.
The trial court convicted Martin; on appeal the Second District affirmed, holding the statutory definition of nudity (R.C. 2907.01(H)) governs R.C. 2907.323(A)(1) and does not require proof of lewdness or a graphic genital focus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2907.323(A)(1) requires proof that the minor’s nudity was a “lewd exhibition” or involved a “graphic focus on the genitals”	State: The statutory definition of nudity applies; alternatively, even under Young/Osborne the video was lewd.	Martin: Young/Osborne require narrowing ‘‘nudity’’ to mean lewd exhibition or graphic genitals; recording lacks those elements.	Court: Young’s narrowing applies to possession/viewing (A)(3) but not to creation/production (A)(1); apply R.C. 2907.01(H) statutory definition; conviction affirmed.

State v. Young, 37 Ohio St.3d 249 (Ohio 1988) (construed R.C. 2907.323(A)(3) to require lewd exhibition or graphic focus to avoid overbreadth)
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1990) (upheld Young’s narrowing of state statute regarding possession of child nudity materials)
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1982) (state may prohibit child pornography; obscene or exploitative child sexual materials may be proscribed)
State v. Meadows, 28 Ohio St.3d 43 (Ohio 1986) (Ohio Supreme Court: prohibitions on private possession of child pornography constitutional)
State v. Graves, 184 Ohio App.3d 39 (Ohio App. 2009) (discussed applicability of Young’s narrowing to (A)(1); split in appellate courts on whether Young’s rule applies to production offenses)