Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/161/29.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 17:26:59+00:00

Document:
Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom concurs Mr. Justice SHIRAS, dissenting. [161 U.S. 29, 30] William N. Cohen, for plaintiff in error.
The defendant pleaded not guilty, and the trial was entered [161 U.S. 29, 31] upon without objection in any form to the indictment as not sufficiently informing the defendant of the nature of the charge against him.
Undoubtedly, the mere depositing in the mail of a writing, paper, or other publication of an obscene, lewd, or lascivious character is not an offense under the statute if the person making the deposit was, at the time and in good faith, without knowledge, information, or notice of its contents. The indictment would have been in better form if it had more distinctly charged that the accused was aware of its character. But this defect should be regarded, after verdict and under the circumstances attending the trial, as one of form, under section 1025 of the Revised Statutes, providing that the proceedings on an indictment found by a grand jury in any district, circuit, or other court of the United States shall not be affected 'by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form only, which shall not tend to the prejudice of the defendant.' U. S. v. Chase, 27 Fed. 807; U. S. v. Clark, 37 Fed. 106. [161 U.S. 29, 33] The indictment on its face implies that the defendant owned or managed the paper 'Broadway.' He admitted at the trial that he owned and controlled it. He did not pretend that he was ignorant at the time of the contents of the particular number that he caused to be put in the post office at New York. The general charge that he 'unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly deposited and caused to be deposited in the post office ... a certain obscene, lewd, and lascivious paper' (describing it by its name, volume, number, date of trade-mark, date of issue, and as having on it the name of Lew Rosen, proprietor, the same name borne by the defendant), may, not unreasonably, be construed as meaning that the defendant was, and must have been, aware of the nature of its contents at the time he caused it to be put into the post office for transmission and delivery. Of course, he did not understand the government as claiming that the mere depositing in the post office of an obscence, lewd, and lascivious paper was an offense under the statute, if the person so depositing it had neither knowledge nor notice, at the time, of its character or contents. He must have understood from the words of the indictment that the government imputed to him knowledge or notice of the contents of the paper so deposited.
2. The defendant also contends that the indictment was [161 U.S. 29, 34] fatally defective in that it did not set out with reasonable particularity those parts of the paper relied on to support the charge in the indictment. He insists that the omission from the indictment of a description of the pictures of female figures found in the paper was in violation of the constitutional guaranty that the defendant in a criminal case shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Const. Amend. 6.
A defendant is informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him if the indictment contains such description of the offense charged as will enable him to make his defense, and to plead the judgment in bar of any further prosecution for the same crime. Does the indictment in this case meet these requirements? It describes the paper alleged to be obscene, lewd, and lascivious with such minuteness as to leave no possible doubt as to its identity. If the defendant did not have in his possession or could not procure a duplicate of such paper, he could have applied to the court for an order that he be furnished with a bill of particulars, to the end that he might properly defend himself at the trial. U. S. v. Bennett, 16 Blatchf. 338, 351, Fed. Cas. No. 14,571; Rex v. Hodgson, 3 Car . & P. 422; Whart. Cr. Pl. 702. He made no such application, but went to trial without suggesting that he was not sufficiently informed by the indictment of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. When the paper in question was produced in evidence, he made no objection to it as not being sufficiently described in the indictment, but, at the conclusion of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, moved to dismiss, on the ground that the paper was not obscene. This motion having been overruled, he testified in his own behalf, offering in evidence a duplicate of the same paper, admitting that lamp black (capable of being easily removed, so as to bring each offensive picture in full view of any person receiving or inspecting the paper) had by his direction been put on the entire edition of April 15, 1893. He now insists that the indictment was fatally defective, because it did not disclose in detail the contents of the 12 pages that were charged to constitute and obscene, lewd, and lascivious paper. [161 U.S. 29, 35] If it be said that he did not know what parts of the 12 pages were considered by the grand jury as obscene, lewd, and lascivious, the answer is that he was not entitled to know what passed in the conferences of grand jurors. He was not entitled to show, as matter of defense, that the grand jury proceeded on insufficient grounds. He had to meet only the case made by the indictment and by the evidence adduced by the government; and if he wished to be informed, before entering upon the trial, what particular parts of the paper would be relied on as bringing the case within the statute, he could, as already suggested, have applied for a bill of particulars, which the court, in the exercise of a sound legal discretion, might have granted or refused as the ends of justice required.
The principal authority relied on in support of the defendant's contention is the case in England of an indictment for publishing an obscene libel, namely, 'a certain indecent, lewd, filthy, and obscene book, called 'Fruits of Philosophy,' thereby contaminating, vitiating, and corrupting the morals,' etc. The jury found that the book was obscene, and a motion in arrest of judgment was made by the accused. The motion was denied. Cockburn, C. J. (Mellor, J., concurring) held: 'If the omission is in the indictment,-if that be the objection, and it be a valid one,-it is an objection that ought to have been taken by demurrer; and therefore I cannot help thinking that, upon the balance of convenience, we shall act more wisely in saying that the judgment pronounced on this indictment ought not to be set aside by making the motion absolute to arrest the judgment; but, if there be any valid foundation for the contention the defendants have raised upon the indictment, it should be taken by demurrer.' Queen v. Bradlaugh, 2 Q. B. Div. 569, 573. The judgment was reversed in the court of appeal, which held that in an indictment for publishing an obscene book, described only by its title, the words alleged to be obscene must be set out, and their omission would not be cured by a verdict of guilty. In his opinion in that case, Lord Justice Brett considered what kind of omissions would be cured by verdict, and declared, as the result of [161 U.S. 29, 36] the authorities, that 'in every kind of crime which consists in words, if the words complained of are not set out in the indictment or information, the objection is fatal in arrest of judgment.' But he also said: 'I would strike out of the category of the cases which we are considering all cases with regard to obscene prints and obscene pictures. The publication of obscene prints and obscene pictures may be in one sense libelous, but they are not words, and therefore they do not seem to me to fall within the rules as to criminal pleadings which we are considering here to-day.' Bradlaugh v. Queen, 3 Q. B. Div. 607, 634.
In State v. Brown, 27 Vt. 619, in which the indictment stated that the grand jurors omitted from the indictment the lewd and obscene paper alleged to have been sold, because it would be offensive to the court, and improper to be placed on records of the court, Chief Justice Redfiedld said: 'Ordinarily, the indictment, in a case like the present, should set forth the book or publication in haec verba, the same as in indictments for libel or forgery. This seems to be an acknowledged principle in the books. But, even in indictments for forgery, it may be excused, as if the forged instrument is in the possession of the opposite party. So, also, in a case like the present, if the publication be of so gross a character that spreading it upon the record will be an offense against decency, it may be excused, as all the English precedents show. Some of the precedents are much like the present, describing the obscene character of the publication in general terms. But more generally the nature of the publication is more specifically described. But in both cases the principle of the case is the same. If the paper is of a character to offend decency and outrage modesty, it need not be so spread upon the record as to produce that effect. And if it is alleged, in such case, to be a publication within the general terms in which the offense is defined by the statute, it is sufficient, which seems to be done in the present case. The degree of particularity with which the paper could be described without exposing its grossness would depend something upon the nature of that feature, whether it consisted in the words used or the general description given. In the former case it could not be more particularly described than it here is without offending decency.' [161 U.S. 29, 39] In McNair v. People, 89 Ill. 441, 443, the question was whether the indictment for printing, having in possession, and giving away an obscene and indecent picture was sufficient under a provision of the Illinois Criminal Code declaring that an indictment should be deemed sufficiently technical and correct which stated the offense in the terms and language of the statute creating the offense, or so plainly that the nature of the offense could be easily understood. The court, speaking by Mr. Justice Walker, said that 'it was necessary to set out the supposed obscene matter in the indictment, unless the obscene publication is in the hands of the defendant, or out of the power of the prosecution, or the matter is too gross and obscene to be spread on the records of the court, either of which facts, if existing, should be averred in the indictment, as an excuse for failing to set out the obscene matter; that whether obscene or not is a question of law, and not of fact; that the question is for the court to determine, and not for the jury.' To the same effect are Fuller v. People, 92 Ill. 182, 184; State v. Smith, 17 R. I. 371, 374, 375, 22 Atl. 282.
The refusal of the court to arrest the judgment was not erroneous. The defendant knew from the indictment itself what paper or publication would be offered by the government in evidence, and that the prosecution would insist that the pictures of females displayed in that paper were obscene, lewd, and lascivious. It is said that some of the printed matter and pictures in the paper could not possibly be regarded as of that class. That fact is not disclosed by the indictment. Besides, the failure to set out such matters and pictures could not have prejudiced the accused. The paper being offered in evidence, if it appeared that some of the printed matter or some of the pictures were not obscene, lewd, or lascivious, the [161 U.S. 29, 41] jury could have been instructed upon that subject at the instance of either party. But, as we have already said, the defendant did not ask for a bill of particulars, nor object to the indictment as insufficient, but made his defense upon the broad ground that the paper that he caused to be deposited in the post office was not obscene, lewd, or lascivious.
This request for instructions was intended to announce the proposition that no one could be convicted of the offense of having unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly used the mails for the transmission and delivery of an obscene, lewd, and lascivious publication, although he may have had at the time actual knowledge or notice of its contents, unless he knew or believed that such paper could be properly or justly characterized as obscene, lewd, and lascivious. The statute is not to be so interpreted. The inquiry under the statute is whether the paper charged to have been obscene, lewd, and lascivious was in fact of that character; and if it was of that character and was deposited in the mail by one who knew or had notice at the time of its contents, the offense is complete, although the defendant himself did not regard the paper as one that the statute forbade to be carried in the mails. Congress did not intend that the question as to the character of the paper should depend upon the opinion or belief of the person who, with knowledge or notice of its contents, assumed the responsibility of putting it in the mails of the United States. The evils that congress sought to remedy would continue and increase in volume if the belief of the accused as to what was obscene, lewd, and lascivious was recognized as the test for [161 U.S. 29, 42] determining whether the statute has been violated. Every one who uses the mails of the United States for carrying papers or publications must take notice of what, in this enlightened age, is meant by decency, purity, and chastity in social life, and what must be deemed abscene, lewd, and lascivious.
5. It is also assigned for error that the court left it to the jury to say whether the paper in question was obscene, when it was for the court, as a matter of law, to determine that question. If the court had instructed the jury as matter of law that the paper described in the indictment was obscene, lewd, and lascivious, no error would have been committed; for the paper itself was in evidence, it was of the class excluded from the mails, and there was no dispute as to its contents. It has long been the settled doctrine of this court that the evidence before the jury, if clear and uncontradicted upon any issue made by the parties, presented a question of law in respect of which the court could, without usurping the func- [161 U.S. 29, 43] tions of the jury, instruct them as to the principles applicable to the case made by such evidence. Pleasants v. Fant, 22 Wall. 116, 121; Montclair v. Dana, 107 U.S. 162 , 2 Sup. Ct. 403; Marshall v. Hubbard, 117 U.S. 415, 419 , 6 S. Sup. Ct. 806; Sparf v. U. S., 156 U.S. 51, 99 , 100 S., 15 Sup. Ct. 273. Even if we should hold that the court ought to have instructed the jury, as matter of law, that the paper was, within the meaning of the statute, obscene, lewd, and lascivious, it would not follow that the judgment should, for that reason, be reversed, because it is clear that no injury came to the defendant by submitting the question of the character of the paper to the jury. But it is proper to add that it was competent for the court below, in its discretion, and even if it had been inclined to regard the paper as obscene, lewd, and lascivious, to submit to the jury the general question of the nature of the paper, accompanied by instructions indicating the principles or rules by which they should be guided in determining what was an obscene, lewd, or lascivious paper within the contemplation of the statute under which the indictment was framed. That was what the court did when it charged the jury that 'the test of obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter is to deprave and corrupt the morals of those whose minds are open to such influence, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.' 'Would it,' the court said, 'suggest or convey lewd thoughts and lascivious thoughts to the young and inexperienced?' In view of the character of the paper, as an inspection of it will instantly disclose, the test prescribed for the jury was quite as liberal as the defendant had any right to demand.
We find no error of law in the record, and the judgment is affirmed. [161 U.S. 29, 44] Mr. Justice SHIRAS and myself are unable to concur in the opinion and judgment of the court. Thinking, as we do, that the consequence of the affirmance of the judgment is to deprive the accused of rights guarantied to him under the constitution of the United States, we are impelled to state the reasons for our dissent.
In considering this question, it must be borne in mind that imprisonment at hard labor in the penitentiary is the penalty which may be imposed for sending obscene matter through the mails; hence the offense is an infamous one. Mackin v. U. S., 117 U.S. 348 , 6 Sup. Ct. 777; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417 , 5 Sup. Ct. 935; In re Claasen, 140 U.S. 200 , 11 Sup. Ct. 735. It must also be considered that, being an infamous offense, the prosecution can, under the fifth [161 U.S. 29, 46] amendment to the constitution, only be by indictment. The necessity for identifying references in the indictment to the obscene matter upon which the grand jury makes its finding is an essential part of the rule dispensing with the obligation of stating the obscene matter, in so many words, in the indictment. The reason upon which the English rule rests is that spreading in full the obscene matter is essential to protect the accused in his rights, to enable him to move to quash, or in arrest of judgment, or to present on review by error the validity or invalidity of the indictment. The American rule is based upon the reason that such spreading upon the record is not essential to protect the rights of the accused, because the obscene matter, passed on by the grand jury, can be so identified by a reference to it in the indictment as to enable it to be, by bill of particulars or otherwise, readily supplied for all the purposes of defense; hence the omission deprives the accused of no substantial right, while subserving the ends of public morality and decency.
The authorities make this clear. Thus, in Grimm v. U. S., ubi supra, the court said: 'It is enough to so far describe it [obscene matter] that its obnoxious character may be discerned.' And the reason which exacted this reference was declared to be 'both for identification of the offense, and to enable the court to determine whether the matter was obscene, and therefore nonmailable.' In Com. v. McCance, supra, the indictment charged the accused with 'selling a certain book then and there called 'The Decameron of Boccaccio,' and which said book upon the title-page thereof was then and there of the tenor following [describing the title page ], ... which said book then and there contained, among other things, certain obscene, indecent, and impure language, ... which said book is so lewd, obscene, indecent, and impure that the same would be offensive to the court, and improper to be placed upon the records thereof.' The court, while fully recognizing the rule which renders it unnecessary to spread obscene matter in the indictment, also applied the principle which holds that, where such matter is not put upon the record, there must be an identifying reference in the indictment, so that it may be deter- [161 U.S. 29, 47] mined from the face thereof what was the particular matter upon which the grand jury acted. In consequence of so holding, the judgment was reversed, and the verdict set aside. See, also, Babcock v. U. S., 34 Fed. 873.
Indeed, the correctness of the ruling in Com. v. McCance, we think, results from the very nature of things. It being unquestionable that a grand jury must find an indictment in order that the prosecution be valid, how can it be said that there has been such a presentment, when on the very face of the record it is absolutely impossible to determine what matter the grand jury charged to be obscene? To say that it can be supplied by a bill of particulars or otherwise is a misconception, for it becomes impossible to supply that which does not legally exist. The constitution requiring that the grand jury should find the indictment, neither the court, the prosecuting officer, nor any one else has power to create the necessary averments to make that an indictment which otherwise would be no indictment at all. This case illustrates the danger of departing from constitutional safeguards. The general rule requires an indictment to be specific. State v. Stephens, Wright, N. P. 73; Com. v. Gillespie, 7 Serg. & R. 469; Com. v. Stow, 1 Mass. 54; Com. v. Bailey, Id. 62; Com. v. Sweeney, 10 Serg. & R. 173; Com. v. Wright, 1 Cush. 46; Com. v. Tarbox, Id. 66; Com. v. Houghton, 8 Mass. 107; King v. Beere, 12 Mod. 219; State v. Parker, D. Chip. 298. See, also, Com. v. Stevens, 1 Mass. 203. To this rule there has been evolved an exception. This exception, as we have said, is that, where the publication or mailing of obscene matter is charged by a grand jury, such matter need not be stated in the indictment, provided in that instrument it be referred to and identified. Under the ruling now announced, it seems to us that the exception is made to destroy the rule, and that an indictment is held to be valid even although it makes no reference whatever to the matter relied on to show guilt. Thus, the qualification as to the identifying reference by which alone the exception is justified disappears, and the [161 U.S. 29, 48] result logically leads to the recognition of the right of a grand jury to present without stating or referring to the facts upon which its presentment is made, and also concedes the power of a prosecuting officer to supply matter in an indictment, and thus make that which is absolutely void a valid instrument. The wisdom of the rule announced in Com v. McCance was well illustrated by the indictment presented in that case, as it is by the alleged indictment under consideration here. Will it be said that an indictment which charged that an accused published obscene matter contained in 20 volumes of books called the Encyclopaedia Britannica or Americana, giving the title-page, and followed by the statement that a more minute description would be offensive to morality, would be adequate? And yet what difference would exist, except in degree, between such an indictment and the one here held to be valid? Nor is it logical to say that, asan accused has no right to know the secrets of a grand-jury room, therefore he is not entitled to be informed as to the matter upon which the grand jury bases its presentment. The constitution forbids, in a certain class of cases, prosecution except by indictment; and therefore, to the extent that such knowledge is essential to constitute a valid instrument, the accused is entitled, under the constitution, to know the secrets of the grand-jury room.
The language of the indictment, while it identifies the paper as an entirety, fails in any degree to designate what matter therein, whether words or picture, was found to be obscene by the grand jury, and upon which their presentment was made. It is impossible from the mere description of the title-page of the paper, and the averment that it contains 12 pages, and was published on a particular day, to in any way ascertain what part, whether pictures or print, contained in the 12 pages, was acted on by the grand [161 U.S. 29, 49] jury. In other words, using the identification of the paper given by the indictment, the mind looks in vain for any reference to the particular things, found in the paper, which were considered as within the statute.
Doubtless, it was like reasoning which caused the court in Com. v. Maher, 16 Pick. 120, to refuse, in a capital case, to allow an amendment as to a matter of substance, even with the consent of the prisoner, and which also made the court in Com. v. McCance set aside the verdict against the accused. In accord with this view is the doctrine which denies the power, even by statute, to authorize amendments which substantially change an indictment. The result of the authorities to this effect is thus stated by Bishop: 'If, in a case where the constitution gives the defendant the right to be tried by an indictment, the legislature should undertake to authorize such amendments as leave the indictment no longer the finding of the grand jury, an amendment under it would oust the jurisdiction of the court, and the cause must stop. Such is the substance of the authorities, though the doctrine is always not stated in these words.' 1 Bish. New Cr. Proc. 97, p. 55, and authorities there cited; Whart. Cr. Pl. 90, subs. 2, and authorities there cited. The legislative authority not being competent to authorize an amendment so as to convert a void into a valid indictment, surely a prosecuting officer can have no such power.
[ Footnote 1 ] For dissenting opinion, see 16 Sup. Ct. 480.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.