Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Samuel KRAHAM, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1978-05-31
Citations: 360 So. 2d 393
Docket Number: No. 52697
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Samuel KRAHAM, Appellee.
Judges: OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 360
Pages: 393–395

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Samuel KRAHAM, Appellee.
No. 52697.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 31, 1978.
Rehearing Denied July 31, 1978.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Basil S. Diamond, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, Florida, for appellant.
Allan L. Hoffman, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
HATCHETT, Justice.
We must determine whether Section 847.-011, Florida Statutes (1975) which makes unlawful the sale of obscene material is so inconsistent with the right to privately possess obscene material, as expressed in Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969) as to render the statute unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution. We hold the statute to be constitutional.
The appellee, Samuel Kraham, was charged by information with two counts of selling obscene motion pictures in violation of Section 847.011, Florida Statutes (1975). After entering a plea of not guilty, he moved to dismiss the information. After several hearings the trial court granted the appellee's motion citing Stanley v. Georgia, supra, and stating:
A regulation that criminally punishes one for providing that citizen with material he has a Constitutional right to possess is illogical and arbitrary [see dicta by Mr. Justice Stevens (United Jewish Organizations, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144, 97 S.Ct. 996, 51 L.Ed.2d 229) at page 996 of 97 S.Ct. (1977)]. The Legislature could enact laws specific enough to accomplish the regulation it has a right to impose. The present law is overbroad for that purpose. Evenhanded enforcement of F.S. 847.011 is not possible and therefore is contrary to the Constitution; . . "
At about the time the trial judge entered his order, this court filed its opinion in Johnson v. State, 351 So.2d 10 (Fla.1977), holding the statute to be constitutional. Since our consideration on the overbreadth issue of this statute is sqn recent, we see no reason to again set forth, our reasons for upholding its constitutionality.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
ADKINS, J., dissents with an opinion.