State v. Tomaino
Ohio Court of Appeals
135 Ohio App. 3d 309 (1999)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Peter Tomaino (defendant) owned VIP Video (VIP) (defendant), a video sales and rental store that carried pornographic materials. After Carl Frybarger had his 17-year-old son Mark use Carl’s driver’s license and credit card to rent a video from VIP, the drug and vice police wired Mark and had him purchase videos with marked money. The clerk, Billie Doan (defendant) permitted Mark to purchase four videos with cash without showing proof of age. Doan, Tomaino, and VIP were charged with recklessly disseminating obscene material and matter harmful to juveniles. The state (plaintiff) maintained that Tomaino recklessly failed to supervise his employees and it was reckless not to post a sign saying “no sales to juveniles.” Tomaino was acquitted of disseminating obscene material and convicted of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles. The court denied Tomaino’s motion for judgment of acquittal, ruling that the jury could find that Tomaino, as the store owner, had knowledge of the character or content of the material being sold and did not implement any policies or procedures to prohibit the entrance of and sales to juveniles. Tomaino appealed, arguing that no statute criminalized his actions or inactions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Walsh, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.