Butt v. State: A rudimentary drawing could not support the charge of dealing harmful materials to a minor.

The standard of whether material, taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient interest in sex is met with respect to material that is aimed at appealing to a young child's interest in engaging in sexual activity with a parent, or any adult. Such material is criminal, and thus easily deemed shameful or morbid and outside the protections of the First Amendment. Butt v. State, 2017 UT 33, 398 P.3d 1024.

Petitioner was convicted of two counts of dealing harmful materials to a minor when he drew two rudimentary drawings and sent them to his daughter while he was incarcerated. On appeal, Petitioner argued his defense counsel was ineffective by failing to raise a freedom of speech defense. The issue was whether the drawing qualified as “obscenity” and whether the assertion of a free speech defense would have altered the outcome of the trial.The defendant argued that the drawings did not “appeal to a prurient interest in sex." The Court ultimately held that the rudimentary drawing was not sexual or sexually suggestive, and accordingly did not appeal to a prurient interest in sex based on the Petitioner’s testimony at trial and the drawing itself. Thus, Petitioner’s conviction was reversed.