Case Name: STATE of Louisiana, Appellant, v. Lawrence HUNGERFORD, Appellee
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1973-05-07
Citations: 278 So. 2d 33
Docket Number: No. 52538
Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Appellant, v. Lawrence HUNGERFORD, Appellee.
Judges: SANDERS, C. J., dissents for the reasons assigned by SUMMERS, J.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 278
Pages: 33–36

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana, Appellant, v. Lawrence HUNGERFORD, Appellee.
No. 52538.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 7, 1973.
Michael Silvers, New Orleans, for appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

Opinion:
TATE, Justice.
The defendant Hungerford is charged with five violations of the obscenity statute. La.R.S. 14:106. After a trial before a judge, he was found guilty of all five counts and sentenced to pay a fine of three hundred dollars or serve sixty days in the Parish Prison as to each count, for a total of fifteen hundred dollars or three hundred days.
In our examination of the pleadings and proceedings below, we have found that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence. This requires us to remand the case for sentencing in accordance with the law. La.C. Cr.P. Art. 882.
The bill of information in this case contained five counts, each charging the defendant with obscenity. They involved the simultaneous exhibition (for sale) of five allegedly obscene pictures or magazines on August 5, 1971.
Prior to trial, defense counsel filed a motion for trial by jury on the basis that, since the defendant was subject to conviction for five offenses of obscenity, he would be subject to a maximum penalty exceeding six months and/or five hundred dollars. Thus, he argues, he was not charged with a "petty offense" as delineated in Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (1970), and he was entitled to a trial by jury. See also, La.C.Cr.P. Art. 779. The trial court denied this motion for trial by jury.
In denying the motion for jury trial, the trial court apparently concluded that five separate offenses of obscenity were charged, no one of which could be punished by sentence in excess of five hundred dollars or six months. La.R.S. 14:106. However, La.C.Cr.P. Art. 493 provides: "No indictment shall charge more than one offense, except as otherwise provided in this Title, but the same offense may be charged in different ways in several counts." Hence, the information (indictment) here simply charged one offense of obscenity, with this same offense being charged in five different ways.
The act of the defendant in simultaneously possessing five periodicals or books allegedly obscene did not amount to five offenses, nor to perhaps as many offenses as there were pages in each of the magazines or books. The simultaneous possession of the five items amounted to a single violation of La.R.S. 14:106, but charged in five counts.
The charge against the defendant is that on August 5, 1971, he "did wilfully and unlawfully exhibit and display obscene . magazines and pictures . . . with intent to primarily appeal to the prurient interest of the average person". The intent is to prosecute the exhibition of material alleged to be pornographic, La.R.S. 14:106, subd. A(2), or possession of it with intent to exhibit it, La.R.S. 14:106, subd. A(3). In either event, the exhibition and possession of the five items constituted a single act and a single offense. Cf., State v. Bonfanti, 262 La. 153, 262 So.2d 504 (1972).
Under similar circumstances, we have reached the same result in State v. Johnson and New Orleans Book Mart, Inc., La., 278 So.2d 84 (decided March 8, 1973) and State v. Todd, La., 278 So.2d 36.
By imposing a total fine of fifteen hundred dollars and imprisonment, which, in default of payment totalled three hundred days, the trial court imposed an illegal sentence, inasmuch as the maximum fine for one offense of obscenity is five hundred dollars and six months. La.R.S. 14:106, subd. D.
For the reasons assigned, the case is remanded to the district court for resen-tencing in accordance with law.
SANDERS, C. J., dissents for the reasons assigned by SUMMERS, J.
SUMMERS, J., dissents for the reasons assigned.
MARCUS, J., recused.
. The exceptions referred to are those provided by La.C.Cr.P. Arts. 481 and 482, see Official Revision Comment (b) to Article 493. These exceptions are not applicable here.