Case Name: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Sal AIUPPA, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-05-01
Citations: 298 So. 2d 391
Docket Number: No. 44264
Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Sal AIUPPA, Respondent.
Judges: ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and CARLTON (Retired), JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 298
Pages: 391–405

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Sal AIUPPA, Respondent.
No. 44264.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 1, 1974.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Tobias Simon and Elizabeth J. duFresne, Miami, for respondent.

Opinion:
DEKLE, Justice.
In accordance with Rule 4.6, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., the Honorable Robert J. Shingler, County Judge of the County Court for Pinellas County, has certified to this Court for instruction the question of law set forth below. The pertinent portion of the certificate as submitted to us reads as follows:
"STATEMENT OF FACTS
"This case is before the County Court for trial on direct information filed by the State Attorney charging the defendant, SAL AUIPPA, with violation of Chapter 73-120 Laws of Florida 1973 in the following language,
' . . . that SAL AUIPPA of the County of Pinellas and State of Florida, on the 5 day of July in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred seventy-three, in the County and State aforesaid, did distribute obscene material by exhibiting to other persons a motion picture film entitled "Deep Throat," knowing the obscene nature thereof, said film considered as a whole, applying contemporary community standards, having its predominant appeal to the prurient interest, being utterly without redeeming social value, and going substantially beyond the customary limits of candor in representing nudity and sexual conduct in that said film graphically depicts and shows nude male and female persons actually engaging in sexual conduct including sexual intercourse, sodomy, cunnilingus, and fellatio, contrary to Chapter 73-120, Florida Statutes, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.'
"The County Court stayed the proceedings to certify the questions of law to the Supreme Court of Florida for instruction pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 4.6 [32 F.S.A.] which are determinative of the cause and for which the County Court believes are without controlling precedent to facilitate the proper disposition of said cause. The County Court on its own motion certifies the following :
"QUESTIONS OF LAW TO BE ANSWERED
"Whether the provisions of Chapter 73-120 Laws of Florida 1973,
'AN ACT relating to distribution of obscene materials; providing for the offense of distributing obscene material ; providing definition of obscene material; providing penalties; providing for the offense of wholesale promotion of obscene material; providing penalty; providing for offense of requiring purchasers to accept obscene materials as a condition to sale or delivery for resale of other materials; providing penalty; providing for prior adversary hearing where appropriate; abrogating county and municipal ordinances relating to obscene materials and in effect July 1, 1973; prohibiting county and municipal ordinances relating to obscene materials, providing a severability clause; providing an effective date.'
"A. is guided by insufficient and arbitrary standards which are vague, indefinite and uncertain so as to violate the First Amendment standard of the United States Constitution set forth in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Miller v. California, 41 LW 4925, [413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419], and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 41 LW 4935, [413 U.S. 49, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446], in specifically defining sexual conduct?
"B. still requires the State of Florida to prove that the material must be 'utterly without redeeming social value' or in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Miller v. California, 41 LW 4925, [413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419], and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 41 LW 4935, [413 U.S. 49, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446], rejecting same as a constitutional standard only the United States Supreme Court's rephrasing requiring that the work, taken as a whole, must be proved to lack 'serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value,' or both standards?
"C. is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the due process clause and equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida because a trial judge cannot determine what specifically defined sexual conduct is embodied with the definition of obscene material as written in Chapter 73-120 in order to properly instruct a jury and conduct a trial under the requirements set forth by the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Miller v. California, 41 LW 4925, [413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419] and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 41 LW 4935, [413 U.S. 49, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446]."
A question or proposition certified directly to this Court by a county court must be one which, if decided by the county court, would be reviewable on direct appeal from that court to this Court. Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, 149 So.2d 33 (Fla.1963). If this cause proceeded to final judgment the trial court would, of necessity, pass upon the constitutional validity of a state statute. An appeal would then lie directly to this Court. Fla.Const., Art. V, § 3(b)(1), F.S.A. We therefore have jurisdiction and may answer the questions certified by the trial judge. We consider here only the constitutionality of the statute vel non, which is the manner in which it has been submitted, and not as applied to any particular factual situation. Neither is Fla.Stat. Ch. 73-120, § 1(3), involved here; it provides that material not otherwise obscene may be deemed obscene if the distribution of the material in question is a commercial exploitation of erotica solely for the sake of their prurient appeal. However, inasmuch as the instant case does not involve any "pandering," we need not discuss the constitutionality of § 1(3) of Ch. 73-120.
A. and C. "VAGUENESS and DUE PROCESS"
Ch. 73-120 states that material is obscene "if considered as a whole, applying community standards, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion and utterly without redeeming social value and if, in addition, it goes substantially beyond customary limits of can dor in describing or representing such matters." The wording of the statute is substantially the same as the Georgia statute in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973).
Upon return of Slaton, for reconsideration, the Supreme Court of Georgia in Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre I, 231 Ga. 312, 201 S.E.2d 456 (1973), upheld the constitutionality of Ga.Code Ann. § 26-2101, after which the Florida statute under consideration was fashioned. The Georgia court cited its "authoritative constructions" in earlier decisions involving the statute to support the requirement for statutory definitions of obscenity. Those earlier interpretations were held to supply the required specificity in the present statutory phraseology under consideration. The prior authoritative constructions were also held to have avoided an unconstitutional retroactive judicial construction of the statute, thereby preventing a violation of the due process clause. Florida does not enjoy such earlier interpretations of this statute upon which to rely but we do find the statutory language sufficient.
Ch. 73-120 was patterned after the substantially identical provision found in 26 Ga.Code Ann. § 2101(b). Where this occurs it is proper to resort to judicial constructions placed on the statute by the courts of the state whose statute provided the "model" in determining the proper construction of our own statute. Gay v. Inter-County Tel. & Tel. Co., 60 So.2d 22 (Fla.1952); Denmark v. Ridgell Furniture Co., 117 Fla. 244, 157 So. 489 (1934); Venice East, Inc. v. Manno, 186 So.2d 71 (Fla.App.2d 1966). If a Florida statute is patterned after a statute of a sister state, it is amendable to the same construction that its prototype has been given in the sister state. Flammer v. Patton, 245 So.2d 854 (Fla.1971); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Beazley, 54 Fla. 311, 45 So. 761 (1907).
Statutes adopted from another state may be deemed to have been adopted with the construction given to them by the courts of the state from which they were adopted. State ex rel. Porter v. Atkinson, 108 Fla. 325, 146 So. 581 (1933). A statute adopted from another state is governed by the construction placed upon it, at the time of its enactment, by the highest court of the state from which the statute was adopted. Crane Co. v. Richardson Constr. Co., 312 F.2d 269 (CA 5, 1963). Thus, in construing Ch. 73-120 to determine whether it meets the "specificity" test set forth in Miller, we may properly resort to interpretations of 26 Ga.Code Ann. § 2101(b) by the Supreme Court of Georgia, which is the highest court of the state from which our statute was adopted, prior to the date on which Ch. 73-120 was enacted.
As was noted by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre I, 231 Ga. 312, 201 S.E.2d 456 (1973), the provisions of 26 Ga.Code Ann. § 2101(b) have been authoritatively construed in such a manner as to meet the "specificity" test set forth in Miller. The cases relied upon in Slaton to support such determination are Evans Theatre Corp. v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712 (1971) (dealing with "acts of sexual intercourse, natural, unnatural, bizzare, and violent"); Walter v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 182 S.E.2d 464 (1971) ("actual sexual activity, both natural and unnatural," including sexual intercourse, fellatio and cunnilingus); 1024 Peachtree Corp. v. Slaton, 228 Ga. 102, 184 S.E.2d 144 (1971) (similar description of the material involved); and Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre I, 228 Ga. 343, 185 S.E.2d 768 (1971) (simulated sexual activity including portrayal of sexual intercourse and fellatio). All of these authoritative constructions of the Georgia statute, it will be noted, were handed down in 1971, well before the date upon which Ch. 73-120 was enacted. Accordingly, the proper con struction of Fla.Stat. Ch. 73-120 should follow the construction placed upon the Georgia statute which was its prototype by the highest court of Georgia. As did the Supreme Court of Georgia in Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre I, 231 Ga. 312, 201 S.E.2d 456 (1973), we hold that the statute meets the requirements set forth in Miller. In addition to the delineation contained in the statute itself, as hereinafter set forth, these authoritative constructions specifically delineate the field of operation of Ch. 73-120 in a manner consistent with the new Miller standards.
We do not extend ex post facto application to such Georgia "authoritative constructions" as binding "notice" to an offender of what conduct is prohibited; only our own constructions are binding as such notice in Florida. Miller. In this respect we stand on our direct holding which follows that the statutory language is sufficient for such purpose of notice. These Georgia holdings on a like statute, however, are supportive of our present like interpretation and, being before the Legislature in its adoption of such statute, as reflecting the legislative intent thereof.
The United States Supreme Court, in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), has set forth the test to be used to separate .the unprotected obscene from materials protected under the First Amendment (and, as to the states, under the Fourteenth Amendment). As stated in that opinion:
"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, [cites omitted], (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." 413 U.S. at 24, 93 S.Ct. at 2615, 37 L.Ed.2d at 431.
The U.S. Supreme Court in explaining in Miller what was intended by "specifically defined" by state law, gave the following examples:
"(a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.
"(b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals." 413 U.S. at 25, 93 S.Ct. at 2615, 37 L.Ed.2d at 431.
As further examples of "state laws directed at depiction of defined physical conduct, as opposed to expression," the Court in Miller pointed to specific statutes of Oregon and Hawaii which prohibit specifically designated anatomical areas and specifically designated sexual activities from being depicted in such a manner as to appeal to the prurient interest, etc.
Our recent decision in Davison v. State, 288 So.2d 483 (Fla.1973), held that Fla. Stat. § 847.013, F.S.A., met the "specific definition" requirements of Miller on its face, in that it specifically defined, in terms of physical condition rather than in terms of expression, the statutory meaning of "nudity," "sexual conduct," "sexual excitement," and "sadomasochistic abuse." The term "harmful to minors" is then defined in that statute to mean descriptions or exhibitions of these defined types of "sexual conduct" when predominantly appealing to the prurient interest, patently offensive to prevailing community standards, and utterly without redeeming social value.
As noted above, Miller requires that in order for a state to regulate obscene materials, the state statute must specifically define sexual conduct deemed obscene, as may be bolstered by earlier "authoritative constructions" thereof which do so and thereby place an offender on prior notice of the conduct proscribed. We must determine here whether or not Ch. 73-120, Laws of Florida, on its face "specifically defines" sexual conduct. There have been no prior "authoritative constructions" of this statute upon which to lean.
The asserted doubt concerning the validity of the statutory definition lies in its seemingly defining obscene materials in terms of a mere "interest" as opposed to the depiction or description of sexual "conduct." The obscenity is described but as an "interest" in such sexual conduct. The statutory definition states:
"Material is obscene if . its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion . . . ."
The conditional or adverbial clause clearly modifies the predicate adjective "obscene" which is equated to the subject of the sentence "material" by a copulative verb. At this point, the statute speaks of that which is obscene as that which appeals to prurient interest, and that which appeals to prurient interest is modified by its appositive, "a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion." While these words literally indicate a type of "interest" in specific sexual conduct, nevertheless, the intent and purpose is clear, that these constitute the prohibited "conduct" which is deemed to be obscene. Otherwise, it is of little purpose to view such conduct as a mere "interest."
It is a fundamental principle that this Court has the duty, if reasonably possible, to resolve all doubts concerning the validity of a statute in favor of its constitutionality. As well, it is our duty when construing a statute to ascertain legislative intention and to effectuate it.
The intent of the legislature to regulate the depiction or description of sexual conduct is manifest from the undeniable fact that sexual conduct is the keystone of obscenity. The title of the act reads: "An Act relating to the distribution of obscene materials." It is the fruit of plain common sense that we hold that this statute defines the sexual conduct deemed obscene. We refuse to permit grammatical niceties to frustrate our duty to effectuate legislative intent. We, therefore, conclude that this is the only reasonable construction which is consistent with legislative intent.
The information filed against the defendant in this case charges him with showing a film which,
" . . . graphically depicts and shows nude male and female persons actually engaging in sexual conduct including sexual intercourse, sodomy, cunnilingus, and fellatio. . . . "
The statutory definition, as we construe it, specifically defines the sexual conduct ("interest") which renders materials obscene as "shameful or morbid nudity, sex or excretion." The acts which the information charges that the film depicts are those which the definition contemplates. The statute states "sex" which, in the statutory context, of course means sexual intercourse, or interplay, this being the indisputable basis of this obscenity matter. The statute states "shameful or morbid" and, as construed, these words modify "nudity" and "sex." We hold these to include cunnilingus, sodomy and fellatio, as charged in the information, for these acts render nudity and sex shameful or morbid.
We recognize the ease with which we might dispose of these distasteful cases by merely construing this statute to encompass the definition suggested by the Supreme Court of the United States in Miller. However, we feel that such a construction would usurp the power of the Legislature to enact statutes, a power which is vested solely therein by the Constitution of the State of Florida. Our construction is consistent with common sense and legislative intent, and we will not, in effect, rewrite this statute by incorporation of the definition offered by the Supreme Court of the United States. Any amendments we leave to the Legislature.
In State v. J-R Distributors, Inc., the Supreme Court of the State of Washington upheld a statute which only prohibited the distribution of that "which is obscene." Our statute is clearly more specific than the statute upheld by the Washington Court.
B. "VALUE OF THE WORK"
In rejecting as a constitutional standard the previous obscenity test of Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 86 S.Ct. 975, 16 L.Ed.2d 1 (1966), the Supreme Court has lessened the burden of the State as to the "value of the work" element of the obscenity test and at the same time has required that obscenity statutes meet a more rigorous test of specificity than was previously imposed.
With respect to the question as to whether Ch. 73-120 still requires a showing that the offending material is "utterly without redeeming social value" or merely that it is without "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (the "value of the work" test set forth in Miller), we hold that the statute must be followed until changed, and it requires a showing that the work is "utterly without redeeming social value." As the State wisely and forthrightly concedes, the Supreme Court in Miller did not find that test to be unconstitutional, but rather found that a less stringent (from the viewpoint of the prosecution) test was constitutionally permissible. The "value of the work" test of Miller is merely a minimal guideline; that is, the offending material must be without serious literary, etc., value before it can be deemed obscene, but the states may require that the work be shown to have even less value than this before it can be deemed obscene. This is precisely what the statute in question does. Even though Florida could enact a statute embodying the serious literary, etc., value test of Miller, it may go beyond this minimal guideline and embody a requirement that the offending material be "utterly without redeeming social value" in order to be deemed obscene; Ch. 73-12Ó does so, and the specific statutory requirements in this area, not being unconstitutional, remain the applicable test under Ch. 73-120.
Accordingly, we answer the questions certified to us as follows :
A. The definition of what material is obscene found in § 1(2) of Ch. 73-120, Laws of Florida, 1973, is sufficient in its terms, to meet the First Amendment standards set forth in Miller v. California, supra, and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, supra, as to specifically defining sexual conduct.
B. Ch. 73-120 requires the State of Florida, when employing this alternative statute, to prove that the offending material is "utterly without redeeming social value" regardless of the decisions in Miller and Paris Adult Theatre, since this is the express provision of the statute, until amended.
C. Ch. 73-120 does set forth what specifically defined sexual conduct is embodied within its prohibitory provisions on its face; further, such defined conduct as now herein authoritatively construed will hereafter additionally support the requirement of defined conduct as to future offenses, in accordance with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. California, and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, supra. Thus F.S. Ch. 73-120 does not violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The certified questions having been answered, the stay of the prosecution entered by the trial judge should be dissolved and the cause proceed in accordance herewith.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and CARLTON (Retired), JJ., concur.
ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion in which ADKINS, C. J., concurs.
. Miller v. Califorina, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419, 430 (1973).
. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted probable jurisdiction in the case of Jenkins v. Georgia, Case No. 73-557, 414 U.S. 1090, 94 S.Ct. 719, 38 L.Ed.2d 547, involving certain questions as to the constitutional validity of the Georgia statute from which Ch. 73-120 was patterned.
. Id.
. Buck v. Gibbs, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 510, mod. 313 U.S. 387, 61 S.Ct. 962, 85 L.Ed. 1416 (1940); Hunter v. Owens, 80 Fla. 812, 86 So. 839 (1920); Cragin v. Ocean & Lake Realty Co., 101 Fla. 1324, 133 So. 569, 101 Fla. 1324, 135 So. 795 (1931), appeal dism. 286 U.S. 523, 52 S.Ct. 494, 76 L.Ed. 1267; Haworth v. Chapman, 113 Fla. 591, 152 So. 663 (1933); Hanson v. State, 56 So.2d 129 (Fla.1952); Overstreet v. Blum, 227 So.2d 197 (Fla.1969); Hancock v. Sapp, 225 So.2d 411 (Fla.1969); Rich v. Ryals, 212 So.2d 641 (Fla.1968); Tornillo v. Miami Herald Pub. Co., 287 So.2d 78 (Fla.1973).
. Ervin v. Peninsular Tel. Co., 53 So.2d 647 (Fla.1951).
. Fla.Const., art. II, § 3, F.S.A.
. State v. Barquet, 262 So.2d 431 (Fla.1972); State v. Tindell, 88 So.2d 123 (Fla.1956); Ervin v. Collins, 85 So.2d 852 (Fla.1956).
. 82 Wash.2d 584, 512 P.2d 1049 (1973).
. ROW 9.68.010.