Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE v. GRIFFITH, APPELLANT.

Criminal law — Exhibiting or permitting exhibition of obscene picture — Scienter not made element of offense — Section 2905.40, Revised Code, unconstitutional.

Per Curiam.

Section 2905.40, Revised Code, purporting to impose an absolute criminal liability upon one who operates or permits another to operate on his premises a picture machine exhibiting proscribed pictures without reference to guilty knowledge ( scienter) or guilty purpose ( mens rea) on the part of the accused is unconstitutional. City of Cincinnati v. Marshall, 172 Ohio St. 280; Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147; State v. Warth, 173 Ohio St. 15; State v. Jacobellis, 173 Ohio St. 22.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE v. GRIFFITH
(May 29, 1963)