Opinion ID: 1876720
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: prompt disposition

Text: Finally, the contention that there was not a proper and expeditious determination of the alleged obscenity is refuted by the fact of the immediate availability of a hearing on the obscenity question before the court which was at all times open for such a hearing. Appellant simply did not avail himself of it, apparently preferring protracted procedures and the incidental benefits flowing from pending litigation and injunctions in the federal courts at the time, which allowed his continued showing of the prohibited films and the resulting mounting profits. We therefore conclude: 1) The obscenity statute § 847.011 is valid and meets constitutional requirements. The challenge (again) of vagueness of the statutory language fails. 2) Authoritative constructions, if published on the date of the offense, apply a) to amplify obscenity statutes for purposes of meeting the new requirement for constitutionality in setting forth specific sexual conduct, and b) to provide the required notice of the proscribed conduct which must be specifically defined by the applicable state law, as written or authoritatively construed. Miller . 3) The new U.S. Supreme Court obscenity test applies only prospectively as to (c), the new, modified value of the work aspect of the new test, but may apply retroactively, depending upon the date of the offense, as to (b) of the test if the state law, including its authoritative construction, specifically defines on date of the offense the sexual conduct declared obscene (thus meeting the new standard) and retroactively also as to (a) that community standards (already in Fla. statutes) apply. 4) Sub judice, authoritative judicial decisions had been published which placed this defendant on notice of the proscribed conduct [19] and the trial and conviction were pursuant to the more severe test then applying, that the material was utterly without redeeming social value. [20] 5) We expressly adopt, to apply hereafter, the new Miller test of obscenity as set forth in Papp, supra , to-wit: obscene material (or conduct) is: (a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sex acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated. (or) `(b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals', where such material, taken as a whole, when viewed by the average person applying contemporary community standards, appeals to the prurient interest and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value). The double feature has ended. The show is over; the verdict is in: Guilty. We affirm. CARLTON, C.J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part with opinion.