State v. Vaughan

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Vaughan

920 P.2d 574, 142 Or. App. 518, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 1130

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 7, 1996

Docket931378, 931379; CA A82759 (Control), A82760; 93-02-1458; CA A83691

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 920 P.2d 574 (State v. Vaughan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Vaughan, 920 P.2d 574, 142 Or. App. 518, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of eight counts of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, as well as multiple sex abuse counts. Defendant argues that ORS 163.670, which prohibits using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, violates Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his demurrer to all charges based on that statute. We affirm.

Defendant bases his argument on our decision in State v. Stoneman, 132 Or App 137, 888 P2d 39 (1994). The Supreme Court has since reversed that decision. State v. Stoneman, 323 Or 536, 920 P2d 535 (1996). The Supreme Court held in Stoneman that former ORS 163.680 (repealed by Oregon Laws 1995, chapter 768, section 16), a related statute that forbade paying to view sexual conduct involving a child, focused on a harmful effect, that is, the sexual exploitation of children, and was not overbroad. Thus, the statute did not violate Article I, section 8. For the reasons stated in Stoneman, ORS 163.670 does not violate that provision. Hence, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s demurrer.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of eight counts of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, as well as multiple sex abuse counts. Defendant argues that ORS 163.670, which prohibits using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, violates Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his demurrer to all charges based on that statute. We affirm.

Defendant bases his argument on our decision in State v. Stoneman, 132 Or App 137, 888 P2d 39 (1994). The Supreme Court has since reversed that decision. State v. Stoneman, 323 Or 536, 920 P2d 535 (1996). The Supreme Court held in Stoneman that former ORS 163.680 (repealed by Oregon Laws 1995, chapter 768, section 16), a related statute that forbade paying to view sexual conduct involving a child, focused on a harmful effect, that is, the sexual exploitation of children, and was not overbroad. Thus, the statute did not violate Article I, section 8. For the reasons stated in Stoneman, ORS 163.670 does not violate that provision. Hence, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s demurrer.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

920 P.2d 574, 142 Or. App. 518, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 1130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-vaughan-orctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack