Document: 454 U.S. 90 102 S.Ct. 172 70 L.Ed.2d 262 CALIFORNIA ex rel. Edward COOPER, City Attorney of Santa Ana, Californiav.MITCHELL BROTHERS' SANTA ANA THEATER, etc., et al. No. 81-271. Nov. 30, 1981. Rehearing Denied April 5, 1982. See 456 920, 1779. PER CURIAM. 1 The petition for certiorari is granted limited to Question 2 presented in the petition, namely, whether a city, public nuisance abatement action brought against motion picture theater, must prove beyond reasonable doubt that pictures at issue are obscene.1 Ana this respondents abate pursuant Cal.Civ.Proc.Code Ann. § 731 (West 1980).2 complaint alleged numerous films shown by were obscene and thus constituted as defined Cal.Civ.Code §§ 3479, 3480 1970).3 sought, inter alia, court approval resolution passed Council revoking all respondents' operating licenses permits, permanent injunction forbidding show named complaint, 1-year closure theater. 3 trial determined both equitable legal issues ordered jury be held on obscenity, nuisance, damages prior court. was divided into liability stages. After evidence pertaining obscenity had been presented, instructed they could find only if persuaded such "beyond doubt." found 11 obscene, 4 not unable reach verdict others. Following determination damages, issued findings fact conclusions law with respect issues. found, independently from based upon its own viewing, same term Cal.Penal Code 311(a) 1970).4 There cross-appeals, city asserting, among other things, erred imposing beyond-reasonable-doubt burden proof. California Court Appeal affirmed issue. Relying Court's observation "the regulation communicative activity exhibition adhere more narrowly drawn procedures than necessary an ordinary nuisance," Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., 445 308, 315, 100 1156, 1160, 63 413 (1980) (per curiam), Justice BRENNAN's statement hazards First Amendment freedoms inhering require even . civil proceeding, State comply exacting standard proof doubt," McKinney Alabama, 424 669, 683-684, 96 1189, 1197-98, 47 387 (1976) (concurring opinion), concluded "one required proved doubt."5 People Gow Mitchell Bros.' Theater, 114 Cal.App.3d 923, 936, 171 Cal.Rptr. 85, 93 (1981). We reverse. 5 purpose "to instruct factfinder concerning degree confidence our society thinks he should have correctness factual particular type adjudication." In re Winship, 397 358, 370, 1068, 1076, 25 368 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). Three standards generally recognized, ranging "preponderance evidence" employed most cases, "clear convincing"6 reserved protect particularly important interests number requirement guilt doubt" criminal prosecution. Addington Texas, 441 418, 423-424, 99 1804, 1807-08, 60 323 (1979). This has, several occasions, convincing" or one variants appropriate case. supra, 431, 1812 (civil commitment); Rosenbloom Metromedia, Inc., 403 29, 52, 91 1811, 1824, 29 296 (1971) (libel); Woodby INS, 385 276, 285, 87 483, 487-88, 17 362 (1966) (deportation); Chaunt United States, 364 350, 353, 81 147, 149, 120 (1960) (denaturalization); Schneiderman 320 118, 159, 1333, 1353, L.Ed. 1796 (1943) (denaturalization). However, has never applied "This unique proof, prescribed Constitution, regarded critical part 'moral force law,' U.S., 364, S.Ct., 1072, we hesitate apply it too broadly casually noncriminal cases." 428, 1810. 6 Thus while may case, choice solely matter state law. Fourteenth Amendments do standard. judgment reversed, case remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 7 So ordered. 8 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 9 Although I my view constitutionally suppress sexually oriented except perhaps shield juveniles unconsenting adults, see, e. g., Paris Adult Theatre Slaton, 49, 73, 2628, 2642, 37 446 (1973) (BRENNAN, dissenting), since alone petitioned review concur limiting grant consideration demonstrate communication seeks obscene. share, however, STEVENS' concern, post, 97, lack requisite assurance jurisdiction consider question join his suggestion practice denying writ remanding decision below rests federal ground. Krivda, 409 33, 32, 34 45 (1972). 10 Alternatively, assuming dissent holding does when otherwise protected material doubt. My reasons stated concurring opinion 683-687, 1197-99, (1976). STEVENS, 12 Without benefit full briefs arguments would answer requires action.1 387, which Stewart joined, demonstrates substantiality question. It distressing considers novel questions character so easy merit argument.2 also surprising reaching out decide doubtful absence conflict normally call routine denial certiorari. 13 * Superior Brothers' 935-937, 92-93 deciding imposes any special censorship allegedly materials, today opines required. no express unless courts imposed because understood means clear did so. 14 surely know difference between opinions merely contain persuasive reasoning authoritative explain ruling binding lower courts. Moreover, absent definitive higher tribunal, entitled fashion rules procedure govern conduct trials Until today, expressed impose litigant seeking film 15 explanation standard-of-proof indicate considered itself bound follow Court. As explained, judge "established high Mr. Brennan's 678 [96 1195, 387]." Id., 935, Cal.Rptr., 92. citing Frangadakis, 184 Cal.App.2d 540, 550, 776, 782 (1960),3 rejecting Attorney's argument normal actions "agree[d]" portion passage "particularly persuasive." Cal.App.3d, 93.4 16 court's construed either two ways. On hand, agreed opinion, established procedural rule followed subject jurisdiction.5 assumed lesser complied but nevertheless ruled believed Federal Constitution result. When sort ambiguity present, duty withhold merits until able say premises." Mental Hygiene Dept. Cal. Kirchner, 380 194, 196, 85 871, 873, 753. Harlan emphasized case: always wary plain necessarily party here Were assume basis below, Supreme Court, remand another presenting issues, inform us based, least part, leaving result untouched whatever might reached question." 197, 873 (footnote omitted). 18 Later "certainty rested [a ground]," id., 200, 875 (emphasis original), before take coming 19 Unless presents unusual importance, jurisdictional leads dismissal improvidently granted, still pending. 200-201, 875. If sufficiently important, make sure ground proceed further. See, 45. Whether regards unimportant simply ignore customary restraints exercise over II 20 Entirely apart question, adherence traditional avoiding unnecessary premature adjudication constitutional counsels petition. practical matter, what stake request retrial rather just No called attention. Even intermediate appellate given greater protection some citizens require, hardly sufficient reason reviewing decision.6 pressing need time apparent me. 21 Accordingly, respectfully summarily. denied. Section provides pertinent part: "An person whose property injuriously affected, personal enjoyment lessened section thirty-four hundred seventy-nine Civil Code, enjoined abated well recovered therefor. A name people eighty attorney town exists. ." Sections 3479 provide "§ 3479. Anything injurious health, indecent offensive senses, obstruction free use property, interfere comfortable life nuisance." 3480. affects entire community neighborhood, considerable persons, although extent annoyance damage inflicted individuals unequal." Busch Projection Room Cal.3d 42, 130 328, 550 P.2d 600, 603-604 (exhibition characterized "indecent" "offensive senses"), cert. denied sub nom. Van de Kamp 429 922, 97 320, 50 289 reads: " 'Obscene matter' taken whole, predominant appeal average person, applying contemporary standards, prurient interest, i. e., shameful morbid interest nudity, sex, excretion; whole goes substantially limits candor description representation matters; utterly without redeeming social importance." conclusion grounds; authority cited proposition precise verbal formulation varies, phrases convincing," "clear, cogent, unequivocal, used plaintiff probability preponderance-of-the-evidence C. McCormick, Evidence p. 679 (1954). Kaplan, Decision Theory Factfinding Process, Stan.L.Rev. 1065, 1072 (1968). Cf. Snepp 444 507, 516, 763, 769, 62 704 (STEVENS, dissenting). prohibits purchasing books want read entering theaters engages form censorship. task censor cannot performed examining content under scrutiny. majority stoutly repeatedly government power draw distinctions expression, see separate FCC Pacifica Foundation, 438 726, 98 3026, 57 1073, Young American Mini Theaters, 427 50, 2440, 49 310, holds unnecessarily concerned censor's content-based scrutiny prohibition communication. seems rest assumption that, consequences lawsuit be, satisfy reasonable-doubt endorsing broad then far substantial indicate. intend endorse premise, respond advanced Stewart, McKinney. Business Professional 25604 preponderance evidence. Contrary characterization, ante, 92, hold 413, compelled "that 93. Rather, quoted course rejection city's towards end long Mugler Kansas, 123 623, 673, 273, 303, 31 205, "support[s] position 'clear convincing evidence.' Since meritless, mistake attach undue significance response argument. stranger litigation. cases J. Wigmore, 2498, nn. 2-12 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1981). contexts. Radio Corporation America Engineering Laboratories, 293 1, 7-8, 55 928, 930-31, 79 163 (invalidity patent); Ward & Krinsky, 259 503, 522, 42 529, 536, 66 1033 (constitutional invalidity statute); Moore Crawford, 122, 134, 447, 450, 32 878 title); cf. Fidelity Mutual Life Assn. Mettler, 185 317, 22 662, 665-666, 46 922. Idaho Employment Smith, 434 100, 103-105, 327, 329-30, 54 324 dissenting part).

Category: 2