Opinion ID: 1726049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Vagueness and Overbreadth: Miller

Text: Even a cursory comparison of the Michigan criminal obscenity statutes with the detailed requirements set forth in Miller reveals that the statutes lack the specificity required of a statute which seeks to regulate speech and thus unquestionably fail to pass Federal constitutional muster. The terms employed in MCL 750.343a; MSA 28.575(1)  obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent, sadistic or masochistic  are neither specifically defined nor carefully limited as constitutionally required of any statute designed to regulate speech or expression. Miller, supra . Likewise, MCL 750.343b; MSA 28.575(2) does not contain, inter alia, the necessary limitation that the material in question lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value in order to be found obscene. Miller, supra . Insofar as this statute defines obscenity, it appears to adopt the since-abandoned test announced in Roth v United States, supra , by asking whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest. 354 US 476, 489. To define obscenity for constitutional purposes solely in terms of the capacity of the material to excite sexual thoughts or desires is clearly incompatible with Miller v California . Under Miller, statutes designed to suppress obscene material must, as written or construed, be limited not only to works which (a) appeal to prurient interests, but also to those which (b) depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and which (c) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. MCL 750.343a; MSA 28.575(1) and MCL 750.343b; MSA 28.575(2) are not so limited. These statutes are vague and overbroad, [10] and therefore unconstitutional on their face, as the people concede. [11]