Oregon v. Henry
Oregon Supreme Court
732 P.2d 9 (1987)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
An Oregon state statute made it a crime to distribute obscene material. The statute defined obscene material by using a test highly similar to the one approved by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. California, stating that material was obscene if: (1) it depicted sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner, (2) the average person applying “contemporary state standards” would find the material appealed to “the prurient interest in sex,” and (3) the material lacked serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Earl Henry (defendant) opened an adult bookstore in Oregon that contained sexually explicit materials. The state seized Henry’s inventory, and he was convicted of committing a crime. Henry appealed, arguing that the statute violated Oregon’s state constitution. The appellate court vacated the conviction on the grounds that the statute was unconstitutionally vague. The state appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, arguing that the Miller decision allowed it to criminalize obscenity.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jones, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 913,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 999 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
