User:Hipcrime/sandbox/Columbus Dispatch Article

The Columbus Dispatch (Ohio)

OHIO'S 'KIDDIE PORN' LAW UPHELD BY APPEALS COURT

By Harry Franken, Dispatch Court Reporter

Published: Friday, April 18, 1986 Edition: HOME FINAL Section: NEWS Page: 4F

Ohio's child pornography law was held constitutional in a unanimous opinion yesterday by the Franklin County Court of Appeals.

City Attorney Ronald J. O'Brien hailed the verdict as a major victory in the city's fight against "kiddie porn." He said the opinion, which dealt with the case of Marvin O. Modeen, settles the main issue in four or five other cases pending on appeal. BUT THE decision conflicts with a Hamilton County Court of Appeals decision and must go to the Ohio Supreme Court for resolution.

"I am confident the Supreme Court will uphold the Franklin County decision," O'Brien said yesterday.

Modeen, 46, of 4230 Dublin Rd., was convicted on two counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material. Franklin County Municipal Court Judge Bruce Jenkins found Modeen guilty after the defendant entered a no contest plea to the charges.

Modeen received a six-month jail term and a $500 fine. But the case was appealed.

Defense attorney David Bodiker had argued that the Ohio law was unconstitutionally vague and also that the law could not prohibit a person from having obscene material in his home.

EVIDENCE SHOWED that Modeen, an engineer, had met a teen-age boy in a Big Brother program and attempted to adopt him.

The boy later called Franklin County Children's Services and said several young men, including himself, had been sexually abused by Modeen. The boy and his mother went to Modeen's house and secured film showing Modeen and the boy in sexual acts.

Sheriff's deputies later got a search warrant to seek other material in the home.

In upholding the conviction, Appeals Court Judge John McCormac said the law is an exception to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that people may have obscene material in their homes.

"STATES MAY recognize and classify child pornography as a category outside the First Amendment protection because it bears so heavily and pervasively on the welfare of children who are engaged in its production," McCormack said.

"Child pornography may be restricted in the state's interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of minors, which is a compelling interest."

Speaking of the Modeen case, he said, "obviously the pictures were produced for evil purposes only."

"They fall within the area of materials privately possessed that may be regulated without offending the First Amendment bacause the evil to be restricted so overwhelmingly outweighs any possible legitimate interest."

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH Copyright (c) 1986 The Dispatch Printing Co.