Court Opinion

ID: 9695348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:15:50.343654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:10.939820
License: Public Domain

HEFLIN, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
The defendant in this case was charged with violating Title 14, Section 374(4), Alabama Code of 1940, as amended (Recompiled 1958). That section provides:
“Every person who, with knowledge of its contents, . . . sells ... or has in his possession with intent to sell any mailable matter known by such person to have been judicially found to be obscene under this chapter, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than one year, and may be fined not more than two thousand dollars for each offense . . . .”
In defendant’s trial before a jury, the allegedly obscene matter was entered into evidence, but the jury was charged that the only issue of fact for them to decide was whether the defendant sold material which had been judicially declared to be obscene. Thus there was no finding by the jury that the matter alleged to be obscene was obscene, and indeed no such determination could have been made under the trial court’s charge.
In my opinion, the conviction of the defendant under the provisions of Section 374(4) set out above is constitutionally in*489valid in that the statutory procedure operates as a denial of due process of law because: (1) The defendant was denied his right to a trial by jury on a material element of an alleged offense, (2) the defendant was denied the protection of the burden of proof requirements in criminal cases, and (3) the defendant was denied his right of confrontation.
The procedure for obtaining a civil judicial determination of the obscenity of mailable matter is outlined in Sections 374(5)-374(16) of Title 14.
Without passing judgment on the constitutionality of the equity action itself, which is not here in issue, the operation of the statute can be summarized as providing the state an opportunity to have matter declared obscene and to obtain an injunction against named respondents prohibiting the sale or distribution of the offending matter by the named respondents. Section 374(12) purports to tie the injunction procedure to the punitive provisions of Section 374(4) which, in pertinent part, declares the sale or exhibition of mailable matter that has been judicially found to be obscene under Sections 374(5) — 374(16) to be a misdemeanor.
While the legislature of this state has the power to declare certain acts criminal, this power is not unlimited. The state cannot punish as a crime, for example, acts which are specifically protected by the Constitution. Thus the state generally cannot make criminal the act of selling or exhibiting all books, photographs, drawings or other like matter because of the limitation imposed on the states by the First Amendment. Certain materials, however, because of their nature, have been held to lie outside the protective umbrella of the First Amendment. One class of matter which is not protected by the First Amendment is that which is said to be “obscene.” Because obscene matter does lie outside the protective shield, the state’s police power may be invoked to regulate such unprotected matter.
The regulation of obscene matter may take several forms, including criminal sanctions against those who traffic in it. For the criminal sanctions to be constitutionally permissible it is clear that there must be as a minimum some designated act such as a sale, exhibition, etc., of some unprotected (i. e., obscene) matter. The essential elements of the crime then are at least a (1) transaction involving (2) obscene matter. Each of these elements is a material ingredient without which there is no crime.
It is settled law that in a criminal prosecution the state must prove every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt. E. g., Piano v. State, 161 Ala. 88, 49 So. 803 (1909).
Whether the trier of fact is a judge alone or a jury, the burden is the same— every material element of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the right to a jury trial attaches, the right attaches to every element, and not just certain elements of the crime. In the case at hand, since the possible punishment was one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,000, there is no doubt that the defendant was constitutionally entitled to a jury trial. Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (1970).
In short, the state may make it a crime for a person to sell, exhibit, etc., obscene matter, but in prosecuting the person for that crime, the state must prove to a jury every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Under this analysis, the infirmity of the statute becomes obvious. The state has attempted to circumvent the usual criminal process by using a civil judgment as conclusive proof of one essential element of the criminal act. (Injunctive proceedings were equitable until the new Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure went into force and effect. Now such proceedings are classified as non-jury under the merged one form of action. See Rule 2 — ARCP.)
*490While it is conceded that there may be some set of circumstances under which such a procedure may be permitted, it cannot be utilized to prevent a criminal defendant from full enjoyment of his constitutional rights. In the case at bar, the statute operated to deny the defendant his right to a jury trial on the most essential element for which he may be condemned —i. e., the obscenity of the matter sold— and he was denied his right to the protection of the criminal burden of proof. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) ("[T]he Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt . . . . ”)
Furthermore, there is still another constitutional defect to the procedure. In effect, the state is attempting to statutorily engraft the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel in a criminal prosecution. While arguably this legislative attempt could be challenged as a violation of the doctrine of separation and unconstitutional under the Alabama Constitution, Art. 3, Sec. 43, see Broadway v. State, 257 Ala. 414, 60 So.2d 701 (1952) (no legislative competency to create a duty on the part of a court without exercising any discretion or judgment when a performance of that duty is an exercise of a judicial function), an even more obvious defect in the statute has been identified.
To permit the affirmative use of these concepts by the prosecution would violate another fundamental guarantee of the Bill of Rights — the right of confrontation. An excellent analysis of this problem is found in Hirsch & Ryan, I Know It When I Seize It: Selected Problems in Obscenity, 4 Loyola U.L.Rev. 9, 76-81 (1971). In the author’s hypothetical situation the assumption is made that the state convicts A in X County for selling obscene matter. Since the threshold issue in A’s case was the obscenity of the matter, A’s conviction operates as a judicial determination of the obscenity of the matter. The authors’ analysis continues:
“Subsequently, the People undertake prosecution of defendant B in Y county, or any number of defendants in numerous counties, concerning the identical material. The threshold issue is again the obscene nature of the identical material. The People may attempt to raise the prior adjudication on this element as the subsequent action (s) concerns the identical issue; there is a final adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; and the party against whom the adjudication is raised, the material, was a party to the prior adjudication ....
‡ % # ‡ ‡ ‡
“Were these concepts operative in a vacuum of pure theory, independent of other considerations, the foregoing would seem to permit the prosecution’s utilization of these concepts in subsequent proceedings. However, to permit such affirmative use of the concepts by the prosecution would affront one of the fundamental guarantees of the Bill of Rights — the right of confrontation.
“This guarantee was held applicable to the states in Pointer v. Texas [380 U.S. 400 [, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923] (1965)]. Under the instant facts, the People, through utilization of the prior in rem judgment of obscenity would, if permitted, supply the sine qua non of the in personam criminal proceedings merely by pleading that judgment and interposing the plea of collateral estoppel in answer to any defense attempt to litigate the issue of obscenity. The ultimate effect of such application would be to confront the defense with the core of the prosecutor’s case, in documentary form with no provision for cross-examination or confrontation. Such procedures were early condemned indeed, were deemed of primary importance in the enactment of the Sixth Amendment.
“In relation to the concept of collateral estoppel, in a criminal proceeding, courts have been quite reluctant to allow *491its application in a manner adverse to the defendant. This reluctance is admirably presented in what may be considered the two leading cases in the field. United States v. Carlisi [32 F.Supp. 479 (E.D.N.Y.1940)] stated the principle to be:
In transplanting the doctrine . to criminal law . . . [a] prior adjudication with respect to an element of a subsequently tried offense is not binding upon the accused. This is so because the defendant, charged with crime, always has the right to have the jury or the triers of the facts determine anew every element of guilt.
United States v. De Angelo [138 F.2d [466] 486 (3d Cir. 1943)] emphatically restated the foregoing:
An accused is constitutionally entitled to a trial de novo of the facts alleged and offered in support of each offense charged against him and to a jury’s independent finding with respect thereto.
While the foregoing decisions considered the applicability of the concept in the realm of a subsequent prosecution of the defendant in a prior action, the rationale precluding application if negative to the defendant is even more compelling in proceedings directed against an individual not an actual party to a prior proceeding, the results of which compel him to defend an in personam criminal proceeding.” (emphasis added) (Footnote omitted)
Furthermore, the case law of this state has long recognized the constitutional invalidity of using a previous civil action as res judicata in a subsequent criminal prosecution. In Helms v. State, 35 Ala.App. 187, 45 So.2d 170 (1950) Judge (now Justice) Harwood summarized this state’s law:
“[I]t is clearly settled by the doctrines of our cases that a judgment gained in a civil suit is not admissible against the defendant in a criminal prosecution growing out of the same transaction. Britton v. State, 77 Ala. 202. Conversely, verdicts in criminal cases are not admissible in civil cases arising out of the same transactions. Carlisle v. Killebrew, 89 Ala. 329, 6 So. 756, 6 L.R.A. 617.
“In Roden and Son v. State, 30 Ala.App. 229, 3 So.2d 420, 421, Justice Simpson stated that: ‘A judgment in a civil case is not conclusive as res judicata in a criminal case, or vice versa, there being no mutuality of parties and a different degree of proof, respectively, being required.’
“In 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 50, the general rule, amply supported by authority, is states as follows: ‘ * * * it is generally held that a judgment or opinion in a civil action, or the record of proceedings therein, is not admissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution involving the same matter.’
“The reasons underlying the doctrine are that the parties are not the same; the penalties are not the same; the causes of action are different; the burden of proof is not the same; the rules of procedure are riot the same, in that in a civil action the defendant may be forced to testify, while he cannot be compelled to do so in a criminal proceeding.”
See also Jay v. State, 15 Ala.App. 255, 73 So. 137 (1916).
If a judgment in a civil suit ordinarily cannot be admitted in a criminal prosecution “arising out of the same transaction,” can it conceivably be said that a judgment in a civil action in Mobile can be conclusive in a criminal prosecution in Birmingham, when the defendant was not even a party to the prior civil action? The answer is so clear as to make a response unnecessary.
In conclusion I would summarize my views in this manner: Our system of criminal justice demands that every person charged with committing a crime be convicted only after having been afforded due process of law. Due process is not variable with the degree of repulsiveness of the *492crime. Murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and pornographers are entitled to the same element of the due process as embezzlers or pickpockets. These elements of due process include a jury trial on every element of the alleged crime, proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and a right of confrontation. In my view, the provisions of Title 14, Section 374(4) invoked in this case deprives a defendant of all of these rights and thus must give way to the dictates of the Constitution.
I,therefore, respectfully dissent.
COLEMAN, BLOODWORTH and JONES, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissent.