State v. Warth

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Warth

173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 15

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 17, 1962·No. No. 36964·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Section 2905.342, Revised Code, making it [16]*16a misdemeanor to have in one’s possession an obscene motion picture film, without reference to knowledge or scienter on the part of an accused, is unconstitutional. City of Cincinnati v. Marshall, 172 Ohio St., 280; Smith v. California, 361 U. S., 147.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Zimmerman, acting C. J., Radcliff, Taft, Matthias, Bell and Herbert, JJ., concur. Zimmerman, J., sitting in the place and stead of Weygandt, C. J. Radcliff, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Zimmerman, J.

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

Per Curiam.

Section 2905.342, Revised Code, making it [16]*16a misdemeanor to have in one’s possession an obscene motion picture film, without reference to knowledge or scienter on the part of an accused, is unconstitutional. City of Cincinnati v. Marshall, 172 Ohio St., 280; Smith v. California, 361 U. S., 147.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Zimmerman, acting C. J., Radcliff, Taft, Matthias, Bell and Herbert, JJ., concur. Zimmerman, J., sitting in the place and stead of Weygandt, C. J. Radcliff, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Zimmerman, J.

State v. Warth, 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 15 (Ohio 1962).

Pincite

173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 15 (State v. Warth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related