Document: 431 U.S. 595 97 S.Ct. 1987 52 L.Ed.2d 606 Roy SPLAWN, Petitioner,v.State of CALIFORNIA. No. 76-143. Argued March 23, 1977. Decided June 6, Syllabus Petitioner, who was convicted selling obscene film in violation California law, contends that portions the instructions to jury violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, claiming (1) allowed convict him even though it might otherwise have found protected under standards Miller v. California, 413 15, 93 2607, 37 419, because permitted consider motives commercial exploitation on part persons chain distribution other than petitioner, (2) prohibition against ex post facto laws, fair-warning requirement Bouie Columbia, 378 347, 84 1697, 12 894. The challenged instruction jury, determining whether utterly without redeeming social importance, circumstances sale distribution, particularly such indicated being commercially exploited for sake its prurient appeal. Held: 1. no rights petitioner. material are relevant from standpoint public confrontation with potentially offensive aspects is forced "equally importance claimed courtroom was, circumstances, pretense or reality basis upon which traded marketplace a spurious claim litigation purposes." Ginzburg United States, 383 463, 470, 86 942, 947, 16 31. See also Hamling 418 87, 130, 94 2887, 2914, 41 590. Pp. 598-599. 2. Though section Penal Code authorized enacted after conduct petitioner but prior trial, does not create any new substantive offense merely declares what type evidence may be received considered by deciding allegedly "utterly importance." People Noroff, 67 Cal.2d 791, 63 Cal.Rptr. 575, 433 P.2d 479, relied support claim, did disapprove use pandering probative value obscenity issue rejected concept nonobscene as separate crime state law. 599-601. 3. There change interpretation elements prohibited law Bouie, supra, therefore inapplicable. P. 601. Affirmed. Arthur Wells, Jr., San Francisco, Cal. William D. Stein, Cal., respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Petitioner Splawn 1971 two reels film, misdemeanor § 311.2 (West 1970). After conviction affirmed appeal District Court Appeal State Supreme denied review, this granted certiorari, vacated judgment, remanded consideration light our decision 419 (1973), had set forth constitutionality determined. ruled statute satisfied requirements articulated Miller, see Bloom Municipal Court, Cal.3d 71, 127 317, 545 229 (1976), again petitioner's motion hearing. 2 We 429 997, 522, 50 607 assorted contentions must reversed given during trial render violative Amendments. He claims question been standards. same invalid reason constitutional laws fair warning construction criminal enunciated City 894 (1964). these fact has abandoned he could consistently Amendments, satisfy supra. 3 As understood Appeal, challenge leveled following portion instructions: 4 "In matter you indicate defendants Such respect nature can justify conclusion importance. weight, if any, entitled (to) you, Jury, determine. 5 "Circumstances production dissemination reality. If conclude purveyor's sole emphasis sexually provocative aspect publication, App. 38-39. 6 doubt interests creation, promotion, obscene. 590 (1974); 31 (1966). This so partly because, pointed out before, accused made an bearing ultimate tests obscenity: 7 "The deliberate representation petitioners' publications erotically arousing, example, stimulated reader accept them prurient; looks titillation, saving intellectual content. Similarly, would tend force work; brazenness heightens offensiveness those offended material. And presentation equally Ibid. 8 Petitioner's case himself. upheld similar Hamling, however, wherein told "whether materials pandered, looking their '(m)anner production, sale, . advertising (, and) editorial intent ..' both Illustrated Report brochure advertised it, were at trial." U.S., S.Ct., 2914. 9 (2, 3) Both prosecutions federal statutes courts, where authority review good deal broader power upset state-court convictions course trial. Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 396, 38 368 (1973); Henderson Kibbe, 145, 1730, 203. exercise latter only renders subsequent States Constitution. Questions categories admissible courts decide. think Ginzburg, rather clearly show abridges applicable Amendment. 10 (4) But so, particular complains pursuant prosecuted. In view, therefore, violates Calder Bull, Dall. 386, 390, L.Ed. 648 (1798), failed give constitutionally charged. find merit, we reject them. 11 defining convicted, 311.2, full effect all times conduct. 311(a) 1970), above-quoted instructions, That section, offense, argument based reading earlier 479 (1967). His view admitted here enactment 311(a)(2). procedural rules governing amounts Art. I, 9, cl. Appeal's contention, since contention last analysis turn proper decisions, determination great weight evaluating contentions. 13 commenting said Court's case: 14 court not, It non-obscene existing California." Pet. Cert. ix. 15 unnecessary determine 311(a)(2) introduction previously excluded tenable Ex Post Facto Clause holds statutory changed judicial deny prohibited. No took place here, derive benefit Bouie. 17 thus merit protection matter, Columbia. claims, appear variations theme, likewise judgment 18 19 BRENNAN, whom STEWART MARSHALL join, dissenting. 20 response remand reconsideration reaffirmed films I reverse conviction. adhere my expressed "unconstitutionally overbroad, face." 47, 2627 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Pendleton 423 1068, 96 850, 47 79 (1976) dissenting dismissal appeal); Sandquist 900, 901, 204, 46 133 (1975) denial certiorari); Tobalina 926, 95 201, 42 159 (1974) Kaplan 915, 194, 154 Blank 913, 193, 153 certiorari). 21 STEWART, BRENNAN 22 face. Accordingly, joined BRENNAN's dissent. 23 if, believes, itself invalid, STEVENS surely demonstrated unconstitutionally it. On basis, join STEVENS. 24 STEVENS, MARSHALL, 25 Under court's determined sold some significance themselves obscene, nevertheless guilty they "sexually provocative."1 A should stand. 26 Truthful statements neither misleading nor purpose. Virginia Pharmacy Bd. Citizens Consumer Council, 425 748, 1817, 48 346. Nothing behalf connection marketing false, misleading, arguably either person bought average member community. make clear provocative," hardly confession And, cannot understand how lost status truthfully described.2 27 Even dubious, there definite interest permitting accurately described. Only accurate description enable potential viewer decide wants Signs identify "adult" character picture theater bookstore convey message entertainment within; today finds acceptable, signs deprive protection. signs, provide erotic shop elsewhere kinds books, magazines, entertainment. sensible regulatory scheme, truthful subject pleasing others ought encouraged, punished.3 28 send jail telling truth about shabby business.4 quoted ante, 597-598. emphasize sentence: "If 31, foreclose decided before extended coverage speech. survive Pharmacy. premise "catch salaciously disposed." 472, 947 "stimulat(e) prurient," id., 948. Blackmun's makes clear: "There alternative highly paternalistic approach. assume information harmful, people will perceive own best well enough informed, means end open channels communication close precisely kind choice, between dangers suppressing information, misuse freely available, us." 770, 1829. Linmark Associates, Inc. Willingboro, 85, 1614, 155 (1977). Indeed, stronger For ban book suppress itself. footnote. Because agrees Legislature's retroactive adoption Clause, n. 4, infra, need survives ironic upholding stressed State's "legitimate prohibiting exhibition when mode carries significant danger offending sensibilities unwilling recipients exposure juveniles." 18-19, 2612, (footnote omitted). record dissent disposition argument. 58 172 (1967), judge solely themselves. Relying held prosecution present pandering: "although remains court, rare properly undertake mere examination unaided expert testimony relating defendant material." Cal.Rptr., 177. reversed, "that go defendant's 'pandering' magazine question." 793, 576, 480 expressly adopted "a elaborated context statute." Id., 793 576 P.2d, 4. Legislature retroactively statute. right rely Noroff decision, believe advertise "reflect(s) strong belief Framers Constitution men act peril, fearing always mind alter legal consequences past take away lives, liberty property." El Paso Simmons, 379 497, 85 577, 591, 446 (Black,

Category: 2