Opinion ID: 1827977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Complaints adequately allege element of scienter.

Text: The three complaints all state that the defendant did feloniously and intentionally sell obscene or indecent magazines. This court considered similar language in the Court complaint and approved that language as follows: ... The phrase, `feloniously and intentionally,' used in the complaint, under the statutory definition, constitutes a sufficient allegation of an element of scienter. The complaint was not insufficient. [24] Appellant attempts to distinguish the cases upon the basis of factual dissimilarities. Thus, for example, he notes that in Court several further considerations such as the books being stapled shut, the 21 only sign on the door, and the like, were mentioned. The Court decision, however, when it mentioned these facts as persuasive on the scienter issue, was discussing the concept of probable cause at the preliminary hearing, not at the complaint stage of a criminal prosecution. 2. Was the state required to identify the nature of the intended and probable recipient group to which these magazines were directed and adduce evidence of the nature of that group at trial? Since the state was not obliged to give notice to the appellant as to the nature of the intended and probable recipient group it follows that at the trial the state did not need to adduce any evidence as to the nature of that group. 3. Was the introduction of the magazines into evidence, without further evidence, sufficient to prove their obscenity beyond a reasonable doubt? This court has repeatedly held that obscenity is not so elusive a concept as to require expert testimony. [25] There is nothing here that warrants any further consideration of that question and the evidence, in the form of the magazines themselves, was clearly sufficient to prove obscenity beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. Did the trial court properly instruct the jury? As previously noted, this case was tried in the same court and by the same presiding judge as was Court. The trial court's instructions, attacked here by the appellant, are identical to those approved by this court in Court v. State .