Opinion ID: 1988243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Telephone Survey

Text: ¶ 69. Crossroads made a proffer of a telephone survey as evidence of statewide community standards in the area of sexually explicit material. With respect to the survey responses which are material to this appeal, survey respondents were first read the following passage: The next few questions deal with adult x-rated videos and sexually explicit magazines. These videos and magazines may have little or no plot. Their contents are primarily graphic depictions of nudity and sex, showing a variety of actual sexual activities, including: vaginal intercourse, ejaculation, bondage, oral sex, masturbation, anal sex, use of vibrators, lesbian sex, group sex and variations of these by adult performers. No minors are involved, and these materials can only be purchased, rented or viewed by adults who desire them. Respondents were to consider this passage when opining as to the following questions: 1) whether Wisconsin standards had changed to the extent that nudity and sex in magazines and videos were more or less acceptable today than in recent years; 2) whether the portrayal of sexual conduct in videos and magazines is acceptable for adults who want to obtain them; 3) whether it is acceptable for such videos and magazines to be sold or rented to adults; 4) whether, as adults themselves, the respondents should be able to legally obtain and view such videos and magazines; 5) whether neighborhood video stores should be allowed to rent or sell such videos to adults; 6) whether the respondent's viewing of depictions of actual sex acts, including closeups of sexual organs, would appeal to his or her own shameful, morbid, or unhealthy interest in sex; and 7) whether the same would appeal to their best friend's shameful, morbid, or unhealthy interest in sex. ¶ 70. Kenosha County objected to the introduction of this evidence, and the circuit court, following its thoughtful deliberation, refused to admit the evidence on grounds that the survey was not relevant to the question of whether Anal Vision No. 5 was obscene and that the admission of the survey would tend to confuse the jury. The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in reaching these conclusions. ¶ 71. Expert testimony on the question of community standards is not constitutionally required, Hamling, 418 U.S. at 104, although we admit that evidence of community standards may be helpful to a jury in its deliberation. As Justice Frankfurter stated in his concurring opinion in Smith v. People, 361 U.S. 147 (1959): The determination of obscenity no doubt rests with judge or jury. Of course the testimony of experts would not displace judge or jury in determining the ultimate question whether the particular book is obscene, any more than the testimony of experts relating to the state of the art in patent suits determines the patentability of a controverted device. There is no external measuring rod for obscenity. Neither, on the other hand, is its ascertainment a merely subjective reflection of the taste or moral outlook of individual jurors or individual judges. Since the law through its functionaries is `applying contemporary community standards' in determining what constitutes obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 489,...it surely must be deemed rational, and therefore relevant to the issue of obscenity, to allow light to be shed on what those `contemporary community standards' are. Id. at 165. ¶ 72. When properly conducted, a survey may be admitted for the purpose of shedding light on community standards. However, telephone surveys which ask respondents to opine about the availability and acceptance of actual depictions of sexual activity in magazines and videos in their communities are not relevant to the determination of obscenity in a particular instance, particularly where the respondent is to opine about sexually explicit material in the abstract. ¶ 73. The Seventh Circuit has offered a sensible approach to the use of surveys on this question: If surveys are to be used, they must be taken in the relevant area; they must address material clearly akin to the material in dispute, and they must be good studies by the usual standards. United States v. Various Articles of Merchandise, 750 F.2d 596, 599 (7th Cir. 1984). The second of these three prongs, in particular, ensures that the survey is relevant with respect to the material for which the prosecution began. See United States v. Pryba, 678 F. Supp. 1225, 1229 (E.D. Va. 1988) (To be admissible, however, a public opinion poll must be relevant; it must ask questions concerning the materials involved in the case or works that are `clearly akin' to the charged materials). [11] ¶ 74. The requirement states the obvious. To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Wis. Stat. § 904.02. Relevant evidence is that which has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without evidence. Wis. Stat. § 904.01. In an obscenity trial, to be admissible as relevant, we hold that a survey must bear a strong relationship to the type of material that is charged in the case or to works that are clearly akin to the charged material. Various Articles, 750 F.2d 596. ¶ 75. In the instant case, as the circuit court determined, the innocuous description of the types of activities the survey respondent was to consider is too far removed from the graphic scenes of sexual activity in Anal Visions No. 5 to be relevant on the question of whether that particular video is obscene. ¶ 76. In this survey, the description of sexual activities that a survey respondent is to consider, as well as the follow-up questions, are not materially different from those asked in the survey which was the result of the appeal in Pryba, 678 F. Supp. 1225. As that court noted, two problems emerge from the survey: first, the surveys do not question respondents regarding the materials at issue or similar materials, but rather inquire [] into their opinions on the viewing of `nudity and sex,' defined broadly. Id. at 1229. Second, the questions are not directed at determining whether sexually explicit material enjoys community acceptance. Id. at 1230. ¶ 77. The most serious problem in this survey and other abstract surveys is that they do not describe with any verisimilitude the sexual activities depicted in this video and for which the current prosecution is brought. The bland, descriptive language of this survey does not adequately describe the impact of the visual images provided in Anal Vision No. 5. See id., at 1229-30. Here, the circuit court believed that the survey language did not adequately convey to those responding to the survey the scenes from within this film to make the survey relevant to the question of community standards on obscenity. ¶ 78. Therein lies the inherent difficulty in using telephone surveys to assess the prevailing community standards on the issue of obscenity. Survey questions such as the ones used in this survey simply do not convey the degree of sexual explicitness that the video images of the film in this case do. Here, particularly, truth rings loudly in the oft-used phrase a picture is worth a thousand words. As the circuit court noted, there are no doubt those who will reply in one manner when responding to a short survey description containing the mechanical terms fellatio or cunnilingus or sexual intercourse, and may have a much different response following their review of these activities displayed in a video. ¶ 79. Because the survey respondents were not sufficiently apprised of the nature of the charged materials, the responses to the poll [are] irrelevant to the issues involved in this case. Pryba, 678 F. Supp. at 1229-30. The survey is not probative on whether the charged materials enjoy community acceptance. The survey questions merely inquired as to general opinions concerning the depiction of `nudity and sex,' defined as `exposure of the genitals and sexual activity,' and whether adults should have the opportunity to obtain such materials....Whether or not 76 of 100 persons would say that the change in `standards' over recent years in the depiction of nudity and sexual activities is `more acceptable' does not show that those same persons would find that the [materials] in question depicted sex and nudity in an `acceptable' manner. There was no attempt in the survey itself to determine whether the respondents were of the opinion that the contents of the [materials at issue] would or would not exceed the limits of permissible candor in the depiction of `nudity and sex.' Id. at 1229 ( quoting Flynt v. Georgia, 264 S.E.2d 669, 672 (Ga. App. 1980)). ¶ 80. The view that we adopt today is shared by numerous other state and federal courts, as the failure of a defendant to demonstrate how an abstract question regarding the availability of sexually explicit materials relates to the material for which prosecution is being sought. See Commonwealth v. Trainor, 374 N.E.2d 1216 (Mass. 1978) (the absence of any connection between the willingness, the lack of willingness, or the indifference of a group to the sale of sexually explicit magazines of the showing of sexually explicit films and whether the particular sexual conduct involved in the case was depicted in a patently offensive manner made the survey evidence irrelevant); see also State v. Roland, 362 S.E.2d 800, 804 (N.C. App. 1987) (evidence of survey responses following questions dealing primarily with public tolerance of sexually explicit materials in general, rather than with acceptance of the materials under scrutiny, was properly disallowed as being irrelevant); State v. Williams, 598 N.E.2d 1250, 1257 (Ohio App. 1991) (On the issue of relevance, the poll must be relevant to a determination of both community standards in general and the community's acceptance of viewing the particular film in question. (emphasis supplied)). [12] ¶ 81. We find that a relevant survey must also address whether the material at issue depicts sexual acts in a patently offensive manner, and whether the material at issue appeals to the prurient interest. See United States v. Pryba, 678 F. Supp. at 1229 (citing Various Articles, 750 F.2d at 599); Trainor, 374 N.E.2d at 1220. Flynt, 264 S.E.2d 669. [13] ¶ 82. The circuit court judge expressed a concern that the reference in the survey to graphic depiction[s] of various sexual acts did not describe the material in question. He further concluded that had the survey respondents been shown Anal Vision No. 5, the survey may have had some value, but absent that showing, it did not. The court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it ruled that if the survey were admitted, there was a substantial risk of confusing the jury thereby precluding its admissibility. ¶ 83. Crossroads' survey failed to both seek and elicit information regarding the patent offensiveness and the prurient appeal of the depiction at issue in this case. To the contrary, the survey sought to elicit an opinion about (1) whether consenting adults should have the right to rent or purchase films showing nudity and sex, (2) whether the customer has a prurient interest when and if viewing nudity and sex, and (3) whether nudity and sex in movies has become more or less acceptable in recent years. These three inquiries were irrelevant as decided by the court. ¶ 84. In actuality, the survey consisted of the consenting adult defense which the United States Supreme Court rejected in Paris Adult Theatre I, 413 U.S. 49. Here, the circuit court judge noted that the survey dealt with whether [survey respondents] felt [sexually explicit material] should be available to those who want to look at it, which is a different question altogether as to whether this work is obscene.... The fact that materials are distributed to willing, consenting adults is no defense to the distribution of obscenity. See Paris Adult Theatre I, 413 U.S. at 57 (We categorically disapprove the theory, apparently adopted by the trial judge, that obscene, pornographic films acquire constitutional immunity from state regulation simply because they are exhibited for consenting adults only). The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in refusing to admit the survey. ¶ 85. As for the expert testimony of Dr. Scott, absent the community survey, his testimony is not relevant to the question of community standards. In any event, expert testimony regarding community standards is not required in an obscenity determination. See Paris Adult Theatre I, 413 U.S. 49, 56. This not a subject that lends itself to the traditional use of expert testimony. Such testimony is usually admitted for the purpose of explaining to lay jurors what they otherwise could not understand....No such assistance is needed by jurors in obscenity cases; indeed, the expert witness practices employed in these cases have often made a mockery out of the otherwise sound concept of expert testimony. Id. at 56 n.6 (citations omitted). We agree with the Supreme Court that obscenity is not a subject that lends itself to the traditional use of expert testimony, and that films, obviously, are the best evidence of what they represent. Id.