# Osborne v. Ohio

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 4, 1990 · 495 U.S. 103

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431983

## Case

- **Full name:** Osborne v. Ohio
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 4, 1990
- **Citations:** 495 U.S. 103; 110 S. Ct. 1691; 109 L. Ed. 2d 98; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2036
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blackmun
- **Judges:** White, Rehnquist, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Brennan, Marshall, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 768 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Limited by United States v. Bowersox, 72 M.J. 71 (2013).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431983

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a statute prohibiting possession of “nude” photographs of minors might not be unconstitutionally overbroad in light of the statute’s exemptions and “proper purposes” provisions, in any event, statute was constitutional under state court’s construction, which limit…
- finding that it is "surely reasonable for the State to conclude that it will decrease the production of child pornography if it penalizes those who possess and view the product, thereby decreasing demand" while upholding an Ohio pornography statute against a First Amendment ch…
- reasoning that state supreme court’s construction of state statute foreclosed overbreadth challenge partly because construction required proof that nudity depicted “constitutes a lewd exhibition or involves a graphic focus on the genitals”
- explaining that where a state supreme court narrows the meaning of a vague statute, a previous conviction under that statute should only be reversed if the defendant would not have been convicted under the statute as interpreted
- holding that, “under the circumstances, nothing would be gained” by requiring adherence to a procedural rule for preserving an argument after the trial court “in no uncertain terms” had already rejected the argument once before

## Opinion text

Justice Blackmun,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion. I write separately only to express my agreement with Justice Brennan, see post, at 146, n. 20, that this Court’s ability to entertain Osborne’s due process claim premised on the failure of the trial court to charge the “lewd exhibition” and “graphic focus” elements does not depend upon his objection to this failure at trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431983. Public record. Not legal advice.