State v. Murphy, 2020 Ohio 4667

In September 2018 appellant Levi Murphy (then 25) sent explicit Snapchat/text messages and a photo of his penis to three juveniles (one age 15, two age 16).
Murphy was subject to probation conditions from a prior sexually-oriented-offense conviction prohibiting internet access on devices and any contact with minors.
School personnel reported the messages; the probation officer accessed Snapchat accounts from the grandmother’s phone and performed a forensic review of a flip phone, linking the messages and image to Murphy. Murphy at first claimed hacking, later admitted sending some material and using his grandmother’s phone, and said drug use may have affected his memory.
Indictment charged importuning (solicitation) as to the message to J.W. and three counts of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles (the penis photo/text to J.W. and the explicit fellatio-description message to C.J. and T.T.), with a sexually-oriented-offender specification.
After a bench trial Murphy was convicted on all counts; the court sentenced him to 15 months on the importuning count and consecutive concurrent 9‑month terms on the dissemination counts. Murphy appealed, arguing insufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Snapchat message to J.W. constituted solicitation (importuning) under R.C. 2907.07	The message invited/enticed J.W. to engage in group sexual activity and therefore solicited sexual conduct from a juvenile	The message was conditional (contingent on getting an apartment) and not a true solicitation	Court: The message plainly enticed sexual activity; conviction for importuning upheld (sufficiency and weight)
Whether the penis photo + caption sent to J.W. was obscene and therefore punishable as disseminating matter harmful to juveniles (R.C. 2907.31)	The photo and accompanying sexual text appeal to prurient interest, depict lewd exhibition of genitals, lack serious value, and are obscene when sent to a juvenile	Such “dick pics” are ubiquitous and juveniles find them laughable; not obscene by community standards	Court: Photo/text meet statutory and Miller standards for obscenity as sent to a juvenile; conviction upheld
Whether the graphic Snapchat message describing fellatio to C.J. and T.T. was obscene/dissemination harmful to juveniles	The message graphically depicts sexual acts (and contains offensive racial language), has dominant prurient appeal and lacks redeeming value	The content is typical of youth culture and therefore not legally significant or obscene	Court: Message is lewd, patently offensive under the statute/Miller and supports convictions for dissemination to juveniles

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards and describes appellate role as the "thirteenth juror")
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sets the legal standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (establishes the tripartite test for obscenity applied with state law)
City of Urbana ex rel. Newlin v. Downing, 43 Ohio St.3d 109 (1989) (discusses what constitutes patently offensive sexual conduct under Miller)
State v. Burgun, 56 Ohio St.2d 354 (1978) (explains incorporation of Miller obscenity standards into Ohio statute)
State v. Swann, 142 Ohio App.3d 88 (2001) (defines “solicit” as to entice, urge, lure, or ask for purposes of importuning law)