Case Name: Commonwealth v. Robin, Appellant; Commonwealth v. Grove Press, Inc., Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1966-03-22
Citations: 421 Pa. 70
Docket Number: Appeals, Nos. 180 and 181
Parties: Commonwealth v. Robin, Appellant. Commonwealth v. Grove Press, Inc., Appellant.
Judges: Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 421
Pages: 70–100

Head Matter:
Commonwealth v. Robin, Appellant. Commonwealth v. Grove Press, Inc., Appellant.
Argued January 14, 1966.
Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.
John Rogers Carroll and Howard Cittis, with them Alan H. Molod, and Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, for appellants.
David L. Creskoff, Assistant District Attorney, with him Joseph M. Smith, Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Julian Fj. Goldberg, with him Gilbert M. Cantor, for amicus curiae.
March 22, 1966:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen,
The Supreme Court of the United States held in Grove Press, Inc. v. Gerstein, 378 U.S. 577, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1035, 84 S. Ct. 1909 (1964), that it is an unconstitutional abridgement of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States for the State of Florida to enjoin, pursuant to its obscenity statute, the circulation of the book "Tropic of Cancer". In State v. Huntington, 204 A. 2d 411 (Conn. 1964); Larkin v. G. P. Putnam's Sons, 14 N.Y. 2d 399, 200 N.E. 2d 760 (1964); State v. Locks, 97 Ariz. 148, 397 P. 2d 949 (1964); City of Chicago v. Kimmel, 31 Ill. 2d 202, 201 N.E. 2d 386 (1964), the courts of those jurisdictions had occasion, subsequent to the Gerstein case, to comment on the book "Tropic of Cancer" and in each instance held Gerstein was controlling and the circulation of the book could not be enjoined.
This Court held in Commonwealth v. Blumenstein, 396 Pa. 417, 153 A. 2d 227 (1959), that in determining the constitutionality of state obscenity statutes, the decisions of the federal courts are conclusive. Hence, even if we were to conclude that "Tropic of Cancer" is obscene we still would be required to reverse the lower court's holding since the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the material involved is constitutionally protected and the circulation of the book may not be enjoined.
Decree reversed.