State v. Martin (Slip Opinion), 149 Ohio St. 3d 292

Terry Lee Martin secretly recorded an 11‑year‑old female undressed in a bathroom on March 18, 2012.
Martin was indicted and pled to creating nudity‑oriented material involving a minor (R.C. 2907.323(A)(1)) and possession of criminal tools; parties stipulated to key facts and exceptions did not apply.
At trial (bench), Martin was convicted of both felonies; he appealed arguing the court used the wrong definition of “nudity.”
The court of appeals affirmed and certified conflict with State v. Young about which definition of “nudity” applies.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted briefing on whether R.C. 2907.01(H)’s statutory definition of “nudity” or the narrower Young definition (requiring lewdness or graphic genital focus) governs R.C. 2907.323(A)(1).
The Court affirmed the conviction, holding R.C. 2907.01(H)’s broader statutory definition applies to creating child‑nudity‑oriented material under R.C. 2907.323(A)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which definition of “nudity” applies to R.C. 2907.323(A)(1)?	State: Apply R.C. 2907.01(H) statutory definition to prohibit creation of child‑nudity material.	Martin: Apply Young’s narrower definition (lewdness/graphic genital focus); without it conviction improper.	The statute’s text and state interests support applying R.C. 2907.01(H) to R.C. 2907.323(A)(1).
Is creating child‑nudity material entitled to First Amendment protection like mere possession?	State: Creating such material implicates far less liberty and can be regulated to prevent harm/exploitation.	Martin: Creation should be treated like possession; Young’s construction avoids overbreadth and First Amendment problems.	Creation is distinguishable from possession; state interests justify broader prohibition on creation.

State v. Young, 37 Ohio St.3d 249, 525 N.E.2d 1363 (Ohio 1988) (construed R.C. 2907.323(A)(3) to reach only lewd or graphic‑genital depictions)
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990) (upheld limiting statutes’ operation to avoid penalizing innocuous possession of nude child images)
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (child pornography regulation justified by preventing exploitation and harm)
State v. Meadows, 28 Ohio St.3d 43, 503 N.E.2d 697 (Ohio 1986) (no First Amendment protection for child pornography)
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (definition and regulation of obscene material)
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) (private possession of obscene material protected but distinguished from child pornography)