Document: 436 U.S. 293 98 S.Ct. 1808 56 L.Ed.2d William PINKUS, dba "Rosslyn News Company" and "Kamera," Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 77-39. Argued Feb. 28, 1978. Decided May 23, Syllabus Petitioner was convicted of mailing obscene materials advertising brochures for such in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1461 (1976 ed.), the Court Appeals affirmed. Since were mailed prior to 1973, he tried under standards Roth v. United States, 354 476, 77 1304, 1 1498, Memoirs Massachusetts, 383 413, 86 975, 16 rather than those Miller California, 413 15, 93 2607, 37 419. He claims that trial court's instructions jury improper because they included children sensitive persons within definition community by whose obscenity be judged; charged members deviant sexual groups could considered determining whether appealed prurient interest sex; also pandering obscene. Held : 1. Children are not as part "community" term relates "obscene materials" proscribed 1461, hence it error instruct relevant community. A conscientiously striving define community, "average person," is judged, might very well reach a much lower "average" when equation would if restricted its consideration effect allegedly on adults. Pp. 296-298. 2. However, inclusion "sensitive persons" charge advising whom consists error. In context this case, includes all adults who compose it, can consider them standards, vice being focusing upon most susceptible or merely including them, court did, along with others 298-301. 3. Nor instruction devia t improper. Nothing prevents from giving an appeal pertaining average person evidence, here, support charge. 301-3035. 4. The instruction, which permitted touting descriptions brochures, themselves, determine intended recipient's sex, i. e., "commercial exploitation erotica solely sake their appeal," Ginzburg 463, 466, 942, 945, 31, proper light evidence. To aid obscene, methods creation, promotion, dissemination relevant. P. 303-304. 551 F.2d 1155, reversed remanded. Bernard A. Berkman, Cleveland, Ohio, petitioner. Jerome M. Feit, Washington, D. C., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. We granted certiorari case decide therefore Roth-Memoirs properly include judged. asked evidence supported may evidence; comparison proffered petitioner should have been admitted issue contemporary standards. 2 after States District 11 counts, charging had ed.).1 On appeal, his conviction grounds defining cast established 419 (1973), although offenses occurred 1971 announced 1498 (1957), particularized (1966), applicable. Accordingly, remanded new controlling 1971. 73-2900 (CA9 5, 1975, rehearing denied 13, 1975); see Marks 430 188, 97 990, 51 260 (1977). 3 retrial 1976, again same counts. sentenced terms four years' imprisonment each count, served concurrently, fined $500 total fine $5,500. 1155 1977). 4 * presented Government chief consisted accompanied stipulation facts which, among other things, recited petitioner, knowing contents mailings,2 "voluntarily intentionally" used mails occasions deliver illustrating sex books, magazines, films, magazine (one count) film count), intention these personal use recipients. From record, appears undisputed recipients resided b th without State California. Because basis our disposition unnecessary us review exhibits detail. 5 defense expert testimony surveys offered demonstrate did interest, conflict redeeming social value. Two films stated purpose demonstrating comparable material received wide box office acceptance, thus covered indictment complied 6 As rebuttal witness, testified what some depicted particular groups. II 7 Court, Appeals, challenges parts rejection films. Instruction 8 read: 9 "In you whole, young old, educated uneducated, religious irreligious, men, women children, walks life." (Emphasis added.) concluded "unnecessary" "prefer excluded [jury] until Supreme clearly indicates proper." F.2d, at 1158. It correctly noted ambivalent point, having sustained Roth, supra, where intimated later 465 n.3, 944, 31 necessarily approve "children" instruction.3 10 Reviewing whole traditional standard review, cogent arguments made harmless error, Hamling 418 87, 107, 94 2887, 2902, 41 590 (1974); however, courts, bar, public entitled greater clarity ambiguous comment score. federal prosecution Act Congress, we elect take occasion make clear purposes par ed.). Cf. Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 146, 396, 400, 38 368 (1973). Earlier Term decided, state statute criminal book "found potentially deleterious influence youth." Butler Michigan, 352 380, 383, 524, 525, 412 (1957). invalidated "incidence . reduce adult population reading only fit children." Ibid. given read so drastic statute. But persons, Smith 431 291, 304, 1756, 1765, 52 324 (1977), judged Ginsberg New York, 390 629, 88 1274, 20 195 (1968). There no reason know likely receive materials. Indeed, affirmative representation involved case.4 conclude accordingly cannot stand. 12 does follow, contends, Court's was: 13 "Thus magazines your opinion. particularly insensitive group You judge hypothetical but must insensitive, words, everyone community." 14 Petitioner's reliance passages Miller, U.S., 33, S.Ct., 2619, proposition misplaced. said, 15 "[T]he primary concern requiring apply 'the person, applying standards' certain that, far aimed group, will impact person—or indeed totally one. See 489, 1311." This statement essentially repeated Smith: 17 has held embodies requirement local national applied. tates, supra. Similarly, according prudish tolerant. supra; Both substantive limitations passed form instructions." (Footnote omitted.) point emphasize central "judging isolated encompass legitimately treating rejected unconstitutionally restrictive freedoms speech press." 1311.5 nothing opinions suggests "sensitive" "insensitive" however defined, deciding narrow limited constitute judging materials, Mishkin 502, 508-509, 958, 963, (1966). 19 relies (1974), argument. Like Smith, though, restated now familiar rule jurors base decision about "personal nor group." 2902. focus explicitly said standard, emphasized person" "must words difficulty framing charges area recognized. means usually means, less "reasonable generations contexts. 104-105, 2900-2901. Cautionary avoid subjective private views do more tell individual juror evaluating collective view best done. 21 Simon E. Sobeloff, then Solicitor General, Judge Fourth Circuit, aptly dilemma: 22 "Is so-called negligence really definition? What fuzzier failure observe care observed 'reasonable man'—a chimerical creature conjured up give aura definiteness possible. 23 "Every man think himself happy exemplification reasonable man'; adopts order fulfill law's prescription resemble himself, thinks is, be, even not. All shifts variations norm find reflection verdict. business equivocal. recognize, reconciled impossibility discovering any ring perfect automatically self-executing. Alas, there magic push-button branches law." added.)6 24 However one defines contention erroneous merit. C. Deviant Groups 25 Challenge "members group" recited: 26 "The first test applied, picture predominant theme picture, viewed part, relation probable recipients, time mailing. 27 28 test, question how impresses juror, rather, considering impressed member picture." 29 Examination lead conclusion acute persuasions, equally arouse reader observer. 128-130, 2913-2914. Many aberrant activities. These depictions generally provided apparently thought nondeviant persons. One mailings list recipient mark indicate receiving type appealing group. 30 Whether decided viewing them; necessary. 465, 944; 100, 2898; Jacobellis 378 184, 197, 84 1676, 1683, 793 (1964) (STEWART, J., concurring). deviants, come forward guide deliberations, since presumed reaction stimuli person. Concededly, past "reserve[d] judgment extreme contested directed bizarre experience trier fact plainly inadequate appeals [particular] interest." Paris Adult Theatre I Slaton, 49, n.6, 2628, 2634, 446 here "extreme" present combined sufficiently guided jury. therefore, acceptable. Pandering "the purveying textual graphic matter openly advertised erotic customers." 67, citing 495-496, 1314-1315 (Warren, held, reaffirmed, determination Splawn 595, 598, 1987, 1990, 606 (1977); 130, 2914. essence, motivation ultimate evaluation offers motivation. 32 gave advert found "this close case" three test. finding removed jury's discretion; themselves Ginzburg, purpose. And while true extensive production, editorial goals, any, operation, delivery names, locations, occupations sufficient trigger instruction. Exclusion Comparison Evidence 33 At proffered, rejected, two considerable popular commercial success displayed Los Angeles elsewhere around country. assertedly explicit secured tolerance. Apparently theory display movies altered level 34 began inquiry into admitted. exclusion printed materials; abandoned when, concurrent-sentence doctrine, improperly count involving petitioner's film, sentence affected. exercised discretion pass admissibility count.7 35 sentences counts fully concurrent; prison years concurrent fines cumulative, totaling $5,500, separate imposed count. least pecuniary securing 36 before us, leave extent further consistent Reversed 39 STEVENS, concurring. 40 If prepared re-examine law, vote reverse dismiss indictment. 198, 996, (STEVENS, concurring dissenting); 311 1769, 602, 1992, Ward Illinois, 767, 777, 2085, 2091, 738 dissenting). my law. THE CHIEF JUSTICE written faithful cases relies. For reason, fifth necessary dispose join BRENNAN, STEWART MARSHALL join. 42 concur reversing conviction. adhere " 'clearly overbroad unconstitutional face,' see, e. g., Millican 947, 948, 3233, 1177 (1974) (BRENNAN, dissenting), quoting Orito, 139, 148, 2674, 2680, 513 (1973) remand direction 43 POWELL, dissenting. 44 Although agree given, beyond doubt. affirm Appeals. Title ed.) declares, nonmailable Postal Service convey them. provides violation. paragraphs stipulation, corresponding relating charges, recite knew mailings. Neither party apparent oversight believe significance. confusion over foreseen Harlan's companion Alberts 962, 349, 319. correctness assumed correct. constitutionality decided. 499 n.1, 507 n. 8, 1316 1, 1320 8. Simultaneously, "agree[d] course, books normal reader," id., 1318 (emphasis added; referring ), "charge [in ] fail[ed] measure understand ." Id., 507, 1320. accommodate demand Roth-Memoirs, almost precisely approved Roth. During voir dire, response prospective juror's question, bench conference counsel both sides, "[I]n way [the case] involve distribution kind will, exposure Though specifically involved, inferred it. contend otherwise. B. Sensitive Persons. articulated Queen Hicklin, [1868] L.R. Q.B. 360. Insanity Criminal Law: McNaghten Durham, Beyond, A.B.A.J. 793, 796 (1955). validity doctrine challenged here. Benton Maryland, 395 784, 791, 89 2056, 2060, 707 (1969).

Category: 2