Legal Document

418 U.S. 153 94 Supreme Court Reporter 2750 41 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 642 Billy JENKINS, Appellant,v.State of GEORGIA. Number 73—557. Argued April 15, 1974. Decided June 24, Syllabus Appellant was convicted, prior to the announcement Miller versus California, 413 93 2607, 37 419, and companion cases, violating Georgia's obscenity statute for showing film 'Carnal Knowledge' in a motion picture theater. The jury had been instructed on under that statute, which defines obscene material terms similar definition Memoirs Massachusetts, 383 413, 418, 86 975, 977, 16 1. Georgia affirmed. Held: Appellant, whose conviction appeal at time Miller, is entitled any benefit available thereunder. Hamling States, 87, 2887, 590. Pacific KF135 P2 155. 2. There no constitutional requirement juries be state cases apply standards hypothetical statewide community—Miller approving, but not mandating, such an instruction—and jurors may properly 'community standards,' without specification 'community' by trial court 157. 3. announced appellant's therefore contravened First Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 157—161. (a) Juries do have unbridled discretion determining what 'patently offensive' since 'no one will subject prosecution sale or exposure materials (that not) depict describe patently offensive 'hard core' sexual conduct . ..' supra, 27, 2616. 160 161. (b) This Court's own view impels conclusion film's depiction offensive. camera does focus bodies actors during scenes 'ultimate acts,' nor are actors' genitals exhibited those scenes. shows occasional nudity, nudity alone render Miller's standards. 230 Ga. 726, 199 South Eastern Reporter, 2nd 183, reversed. Louis Nizer, New York City, appellant. Tony Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Hight, Atlanta, Ga., appellee. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 convicted crime distributing material. His conviction, March 1972, movie theater Albany, Georgia. found appellant guilty pursuant language set forth this plurality (1966): 2 'Material if considered as whole, applying community standards, its predominant prurient interest, is, shameful morbid interest sex excretion, utterly redeeming social value if, addition, it goes substantially beyond customary limits candor describing representing matters.' Ga.Code Ann. § 26—2101(b) (1972).1 3 We hold today 590, defendants our decisions convictions were direct should receive them from decisions. conclude here 419 (1973), Amendments require judgment affirming 4 manager being shown. While he exhibiting January 13, local law enforcement officers seized search warrant. later charged accusation, 27—704 (1972), with offense material.2 After his Superior Dougherty County, jury, having seen heard testimony, returned general verdict 23, 1972.3 fined $750 sentenced 12 months' probation. He appealed Georgia, divided vote affirmed July 2, 1973. That stated contained 'considerably more restrictive' than new test recent case Amendment protect commercial exhibition pornography. dissenting Justices, addition other disagreements court, thought protection then we noted probable jurisdiction, 414 1090, 38 547 (1973). 5 agree implicit ruling Constitution community. approved use instructions; did mandate their use. What makes clear need 'national standards.' also approval court's instructions directing standards' specifying 'community.' held constitutionally permissible permit rely understanding they came contemporary considerable latitude framing statutes element decision. A State choose define 'contemporary defined further specification, done here, precise geographic terms, California Miller. 6 now turn question whether protected Amendments, appellee asserts before us because raise appeal. But argued issue below, reached decided it. sufficient practice. Raley Ohio, 360 423, 436, 79 1257, 1265, 1344 (1959). note charges distribution charge.4 However, suggest can sustained these alternative grounds. Cf. Stromberg 283 359, 367—368, 51 532, 535, 75 L.Ed. 1117 (1931). 7 little record about itself.5 has supplied variety information critical commentary, authenticity dispute. appeared many 'Ten Best' lists 1971, year released. Many all reviews favorable. believe following passage review Saturday Review reasonably accurate description film: 8 '(It basically story) two young college men, roommates lifelong friends forever preoccupied lives. Both first met virgins. Nicholson knowledgeable attractive two; speaking colloquially, burgeoning bastard. Art Garfunkel friend, nice troubled guy straight out early Feiffer cartoons, real. falls love lovely Susan (Candice Bergen) unknowingly shares her buddy. As 'safer' two, selected marriage. 9 'The changes. men thirties, pursuing successful careers York. running through average dozen women never managed meet right one, full bosom, good legs, rounded bottom. More that, each every threat malehood peace mind, until last, bar, finds Ann-Margret, aging bachelor girl striking cleavage and, quite obviously, something past. 'Why don't shack up?' she suggests. They horrendous relationship ensues, complicated mainly paranoidal desire marry. Meanwhile, Garfunkel? sparks gone marriage, lost savor, tries once more. And later, even foolishly, again.'6 10 Appellee contends essentially vel non resolved against appellant, there some evidence support findings, evaluate appellee's contention. 11 states questions appeals 'prurient interest' formulates 'essentially fact.' U.S., 30, S.Ct., 2618. 'When triers fact asked decide 'the person, would consider certain 'prurient' unrealistic answer based abstract formulation .. To structure proceedings around national standard' exercise futility.' Ibid. Paris Adult Theatre & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions Slaton, 49, 2628, 446 same day, expert testimony necessary when films themselves placed evidence. Id., 56, 2634. lead apparent jury's virtually precluded appellate assertion Even though patent offensiveness fact,' serious misreading offensive.' Not only say values applicable adequately ultimate power courts independent claims necessary,' 25, 2615, made plain holding unless conduct. .' 13 took pains 'give few examples could regulation part standard announced,' offensiveness. 2615. These include 'representations descriptions acts, normal perverted, actual simulated,' masturbation, excretory functions, lewd genitals.' purport exhaustive catalog might find offensive, certainly intended fix substantive limitations, deriving Amendment, type determination. It wholly odds aspect uphold upon defendant's woman bare midriff, unanimously agreed guilty. 14 Our viewing satisfies way. Nothing within either given anything sufficiently justify treatment. matter broader sense, sex, including acts' understood taking place, times. whatever genitals, otherwise, enough make legally 15 Appellant's simply 'public portrayal hard core sake, ensuing gain' said punishable 35, 2621. not, law, parently way, outside obscene. No basis appearing sustained, reverse Reversed. 17 DOUGLAS, ban prohibited Fourteenth, concurs reversal conviction. See 70 73, 2663, (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting). 18 BRENNAN, whom STEWART MARSHALL join, concurring result. 19 Adopting restatement Roth-Memoirs* 'obscenity,' regulated, provided '(a) work, taken .; work depicts describes, specifically law; (c) lacks literary, artistic, political scientific value.' my then—and remains so—that reformulation hardly represented solution Harlan called intractable problem,' Interstate Circuit, Incorporated Dallas, 390 676, 704, 88 1298, 1313, 20 225 (1968) (concurring opinion). Today's decision confirms observation extricate mire case-by-case determinations obscenity. noted, dissent: 'Ultimately, reformation must fail still leaves responsibility Amendment. concedes restated formulation, interests stake 'appellate (, 416 419), citing Harlan's Roth, where stated, 'I understand how resolve problems making character based.' 354 498, 77 1316. Thus, relieve awesome task criminal law.' careful efforts lower federal remain pointless exercise, In status sexually oriented necessarily doubt final Court, approach diminish chill expression derives uncertainty underlying standard. am convinced physical cannot provide clarity afford fair notice, avoid expression, minimize institutional stress, so long used outright suppression asserted fall terms.' 100—101, 2656. (Footnote omitted.) 21 today, requires courts—including Court—to independently Moreover, limited reviewing finding lack(ed) political, determination notes, 160: 22 'Even 27.' 23 order mandated required screen film, non. Following review, holds 'could obscene.' Ante, 24 effect 'one certainty least five members inevitably obscure pronounced so.' 92, 2652 (Brennan, Because attendant process inevitable stress judiciary, continue adhere 'at absence juveniles obtrusive unconsenting adults, prohibit Federal Governments attempting suppress allegedly 'obscene' contents.' 113, 2662. standard, Jenkins overbroad facially invalid. concur result Jenkins' Section 26—2101 'Distributing materials.' Subsection provides relevant part: 'A person commits ofscene exhibits otherwise disseminates description, knowing nature thereof '(material), obscene, section exploitation erotica solely sake appeal.' (d) shall punished misdemeanor subsequent years' imprisonment and/or fine exceed $5,000. App. 8, 'with Distributing Obscene Material' knowingly public act intercourse, organs, appearance partial complete caress indecent fondling another person' contrary laws latterquoted appears 26—2011, 'Public indecency,' performance listed acts place misdemeanor. Under Ann 26—2105, exhibit portraying constitute indecency' 26—2011 performed place. arrest warrant specified 26—2105 violating. reach contention denied due while allowed convict 26—2101. demurrer accusation demonstrates awareness offense, 9, requested numerous obscenity, 47 49. alternatively subsections (pandering), see n. 1, supra. 3, testified 'critically acclaimed ten best pictures 1971 Margret received Academy Award nomination picture.' played 29 towns booked 50 60 theaters spring summer showing. 24. Hollis Alpert, Review, Page 18. * Roth 476, 1304, 1498 (1957), (1966).

Classification Label: 2