State v. Martin (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7196

In March 2012 Terry Lee Martin secretly recorded video of an 11‑year‑old girl undressed in a bathroom. He was indicted for creating nudity‑oriented material involving a minor (R.C. 2907.323(A)(1)) and possession of criminal tools.
Parties stipulated Martin made the recording, the subject was a minor, the recording was not for any bona fide proper purpose, and the parents did not give written consent.
Martin was convicted by the trial court after waiving a jury; the court of appeals affirmed and certified a conflict with a Fourth District decision that had applied this court’s narrower definition of “nudity” from State v. Young.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted briefing on whether R.C. 2907.323(A)(1) should use the statutory definition of “nudity” (R.C. 2907.01(H)) or the narrower Young definition (lewd exhibition or graphic focus on genitals).
The Court concluded the statutory definition in R.C. 2907.01(H) governs R.C. 2907.323(A)(1) and affirmed the judgment; two justices dissented arguing Young’s narrower construction should apply to avoid constitutional problems.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which definition of “nudity” applies to R.C. 2907.323(A)(1): R.C. 2907.01(H) (broad) or Young (narrow lewd/graphic focus)?	State: R.C. 2907.01(H) applies because creation of child‑nudity material implicates state interests similar to child pornography and warrants a broad prohibition.	Martin: Young’s narrower definition controls; otherwise innocuous or non‑lewd depictions of nude minors would be criminalized in violation of First Amendment protections.	The Court held R.C. 2907.01(H) (the statutory definition) applies to R.C. 2907.323(A)(1).

State v. Young, 37 Ohio St.3d 249 (Ohio 1988) (construed possession statute to reach only lewd or graphic‑focus nudity to avoid chilling protected expression)
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1982) (states may restrict child pornography; protecting children justifies limitations on speech)
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1990) (upheld state law criminalizing possession of child pornography given narrow construction)
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1969) (private possession of obscene material protected under certain circumstances)
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1973) (definition and regulation framework for obscenity)
State v. Meadows, 28 Ohio St.3d 43 (Ohio 1986) (recognizes that child pornography is unprotected and state interests in prohibition)
State v. Tooley, 114 Ohio St.3d 366 (Ohio 2007) (discusses limits on regulation of private possession of obscene material)