The court accepted the case in order to clarify whether the definition of “nudity” differs for those charged with possessing materials with nude children from those charged with creating non-pornographic materials with child nudity.
Martin recorded a video of the girl while she was undressing in a bathroom, and he was subsequently charged.
The law prohibits photographing “any minor who is not the person’s child or ward in a state of nudity, or create, direct, produce, or transfer any material or performance that shows the minor in a state of nudity.”
The statute has an exception that allows the photographing of a nude minor if the parents or guardian give written consent and it is used for “a bona fide artistic, medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose, by or to a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing bona fide studies or research, librarian, member of the clergy, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance.”
At the trial, the parties stipulated that the girl’s parents did not consent in writing to Martin’s recording and it did not meet any of the uses stated in the law.
He was found guilty and appealed his sentence to the Second District Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court did not apply the proper definition of “nudity” in order to convict him.
The Second District affirmed his conviction, but noted its decision was in conflict with the Fourth District Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court determined a conflict existed and agreed to hear the case.
The majority concluded that the narrower definition of nudity does not have to be applied and that Martin was properly convicted when the court used the definition of nudity written in the Revised Code.
For updates and more news click here to download our free apps.