Court Opinion

ID: 9417702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:32:45.166569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:48.451564
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice White, with whom concurred Mr. Justice Shiras,
dissenting.
*44Mr. Justice Shiras and myself are unable to concur in the opinion and judgment of the court. Thinking, as we do, that the consequence of the affirmance of the judgment is to deprive .the accused of rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution of the United States, we are impelled to state the reasons for our dissent.
It was claimed at the bar of this court that the indictment was absolutely void, because it failed to set forth an offence against the law of the United States. This contention rested on two propositions: First, that the indictment did not on its face contain a statement of .the obscene matter charged to have been illegally mailed; second, because even if the failure to so state was excused by the allegation in the indictment that the matter was too obscene and offensive to be repeated, the indictment was none the less absolutely void, because it failed to give an identifying reference to that which the grand jury found to be obscene.
If these objections be well founded, they are necessarily apparent on the face of the record. They go to the jurisdiction of the court ratione materim. They consequently demand consideration whether or not they were presented to the court below, or have been regularly assigned for error here. Montana Railway Co. v. Warren, 137 U. S. 348, 351. The questions, then, are:

First. Was it necessary to spread the matter alleged to be obscene in full in the indictment, and was the failure to do so excused by the allegation in the indictment that it was too offensive to be put on the record?

It is unquestioned that the English rule requires, where obscene words are relied upon, that the obscene matter should be set out explicitly in the indictment, and that the averment that is too obscene to be so stated is insufficient to excuse the omission. Regina v. Bradlaugh, 3 Q. B. Div. 621. But this is not the doctrine of the American courts. At the time Regina v. Bradlaugh was decided the contrary rule had been announced in several leading cases in this country, and the court in the Bradlaugh case said: “ In support of this contention for the crown some American cases were cited. Deci*45sions in the courts of the United States are not binding authorities, and although they may be expressly in point, yet, if they are contrary to our law, they must be disregarded.” The cases thus referred to have since been followed by many other American authorities, so that the question, may be considered in this country as determined adversely to the English rule. Commonwealth v. Holmes, 17 Mass. 336; Commonwealth v. Tarbox, 1 Cush. 66; People v. Girardin, 1 Michigan, 90 ; State v. Pennington, 5 Lea, 506; McNair v. People, 89 Illinois, 441; Fuller v. People, 92 Illinois, 182 ; State v. Brown, 27 Vermont, 619; State v. Griffin, 43 Texas, 538 ; State v. Smith, 17 R. I. 371 ; Commonwealth v. Dejardin, 126 Mass. 46 ; Commonwealth v. Wright, 139 Mass. 382; Commonwealth v. McCance, 164 Mass. 162; United States v. Bennett, 16 Blatchford, 338. It was with reference to this well settled view that in Grimm v. United States, 156 U. S. 604, in speaking of sending obscene matter through the mails, the court said (p. 608): “ The charge is not of sending obscene matter through the mails, in which case- some description might be necessary, both for identification of the offence, and to enable the court to determine whether the matter was obscene, and, therefore, non-mailable. Even in such cases it held that it is unnecessary to spread the obscene matter in all its filthiness upon the record; it is enough to so far describe it that its obnoxious character may be discerned.”

Second. Where the obscene matter is not spread upon the face of the indictment, and is excused under the averment that it would be offensive to morality to do so, is the indictment valid where it gives no specific reference identifying the matter found by the grand jury to be obscene, thus rendering it impossible to determine upon what the grand jury based its presentment f

In considering this question it must be borne in mind that imprisonment at hard labor in the penitentiary is the penalty which may be imposed for sending obscene matter through the mails; hence the offence is an infamous one. Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417; In re Claasen, 140 U. S. 200. It must also be considered that, being an infamous offence, the prosecution can, under the Fifth *46Amendment to the Constitution, only be by indictment. The necessity for identifying references in the indictment, to the obscene matter upon which the grand jury makes its finding, is an essential part of the rule, dispensing with the obligation of stating the obscene matter, in so many words, in the indictment. The reason upon which the English rule rests is that ' spreading in full the obscene matter is essential to protect the accused in his rights, to enable him to move to quash, or in arrest of judgment, or to present on review by error the validity or invalidity of the indictment. The American rule is based - upon the reason that such spreading upon the record is not essential to protect the rights of the accused, because the obscene matter, passed on by the grand jury, can be so identified by a .. reference to it in the indictment, as to enable it to be, by bill of particulars or otherwise, readily supplied for all the purposes of defence; hence, the omission deprives the accused of no substantial right, whilst subserving the ends of public morality Imd decency.
The authorities make this clear. Thus in Grimm v. United States, ub. sup., the court said: “ It is enough to so far describe it [obscene matter] that its obnoxious character may be discerned.” And the reason which exacted this reference was declared to be “both for identification of the offence and to enable the courc to determine whether the matter was obscene, and, therefore, non-mailable.” In Commonwealth v. McCance, supra, the indictment charged the accused with “selling a certain book then and there, called ‘ The Decameron of Boccaccio,’ and which said book upon the title page thereof was then and there of the tenor following, (describing the title page,) . . . which said book then and there contained among other things certain obscene, indecent and impure-language, . . which said book is so lewd, obscene, indecent and impure that the. same would be offensive to the court and improper to be placed upon the records thereof.” The court, whilst fully recognizing the rule which renders it unnecessary to spread obscene matter in the indictment, also applied the principle which holds that where such-matter is not put upon the record there must be an identifying reference in the indictment so that it may be deter*47mined from the face thereof what was the particular matter upon which the grand jury acted. In consequence of so holding the judgment was reversed and the verdict set aside. See also Babcock v. United States, 34 Fed. Rep. 873.
Indeed, the correctness of the ruling in Commonwealth v. McCance we think results from the very nature of things. It being unquestionable that a grand jury must find an indictment in order that the prosecution be valid, how can it be said that there has been such a presentment, when on the very face of the record it is absolutely impossibles to determine what matter the grand jury charged to be obscene? To say that' it can be supplied by a bill of particulars or otherwise is a misconception, for it becomes impossible to supply that which does not legally exist. The Constitution requiring that' the grand jury should find the indictment, neither the court, the prosecuting officer nor any one else have power to create the necessary averments to make that an indictment, which otherwise would be no indictment at all. This case' illustrates the danger of departing from constitutional safeguards. The general rule requires an indictment, to be specific. Stephens v. State, Wright (Ohio), 73 ; Commonwealth v. Gillespie, 7 S. & R. 469; Commonwealth v. Stow, 1 Mass. 54; Commonwealth v. Bailey, 1 Mass. 62; Commonwealth v. Sweney, 10 S. & R. 173; Commonwealth v. Wright, 1 Cush. 46; Commonwealth v. Tarbox, 1 Cush. 66; Commonwealth v. Houghton, 8 Mass. 107; King v. Beere, 12 Mod. 219; State v. Parker, 1D. Chipman (Vermont), 298. See, also, Commonwealth v. Stevens, 1 Mass. 203. To this rule there has been evolved an exception. This exception, as we. have said, is that where the publication or mailing of obscene matter is charged by a grand jury, such matter need not be stated in the indictment, provided in that instrument it be referred to and identified. Under the ruling now announced, it seems to us that the exception is made to destroy the rulé, and that an indictment is held to be valid even although it makes no reference whatever to the matter relied on to show, guilt. Thus the qualification as to the identifying reference by which alone the exception is justified disappears, and the *48result logically leads to the recognition of the right of a grand jury to present without stating or referring, to the fácts upon which its presentment is made, and also concede» the power of a prosecuting officer to supply matter in an indictment, and thus make that which is absolutely void a valid instrument. The wisdom of the rule announced in Commonwealth v. McCance, was well illustrated by the indictment presented in that case, as it is by the alleged indictment under consideration here. Will it be said that an indictment which charged that an accused published obscene matter contained in twenty volumes of books called the Encyclopaedia Britannica or Americana, giving the title page, and followed by the statement that a more minute description would be offensive to morality, would be adequate? And yet what ..difference would exist, except in degree, between such an indictment and the one here held to be valid ? Nor is it logical to say that as an accused has no right to know the secrets of a grand jury room, therefore he is not entitled tobe informed.as to the matter upon which the grand jury bases, its presentment. The Constitution forbids in a certain class of cases prosecution except by indictment, and, therefore, to the extent that such knowledge is essential to constitute a valid instrument, the accused is entitled, under the Constitution, to know the secrets of the grand jury room.
If these views as to the necessity of an identifying reference, supported, as we think they are, by the statement of the court in Grimm v. United States, and the ruling of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Commonwealth v. McCance, be sound, their application to this case is clear.
The language of the indictment, whilst it identifies the paper as an entirety, fails in any degree to designate what matter therein, whether words or picture, was found to be obscene by the grand jury, and upon which their presentment was made. It is impossible from the mere description of the title page of the paper, and the averment that it contains twelve pages and was published on a particular day, to in any way ascertain what part, whether pictures or print, contained in the twelve pages, was acted on by the grand *49jury. In other words, using the identification of the paper given by the indictment, the mind looks in vain for any reference to the particular things, found in the paper, which were considered as within the statute.
Nor can it be correctly said that the alleged indictment under consideration charged .that each and every part of. the newspaper was obscene, and therefore the grand jury found the whole paper was of that character, thus identifying the' whole. It will be seen, from an examination of the indictment, that its language expressly charges that only portions of the publication to which it refers are obscene. The paper to which the indictment relates is twelve pages of the ordinary size of illustrated papers, with a title .page as described in the indictment. Three of its pages are devoted to advertisements; all the other pages, except the sixth and .seventh, contained pictures and printed matter. The excepted pages contain only pictures, which are blackened over in part so as to seemingly conceal them, and yet leaving enough unblackened to suggest the subjects which they depict. The eighth page has similar pictures along with the printed matter. After describing the title page of the paper and the picture thereon, the indictment says “ and the said paper consists of twelve pages, minute description of which with the pictures therein and thereon would be offensive to the court and improper tó spread upon the records of the court, because of their obscene, lewd and indecent matters.” This is not an allegation that the entire contents of the publication were obscene, because if that was intended there would be no necessity of referring to a “ minute description ” of the paper as essential to disclose the obscene matter. It can, reasonably, only bear the construction that the publication was claimed to be obscene because of “obscene, lewd and indecent matters” appearing somewhere in the publication. It is evident, therefore, that particular matter contained in the twelve pages was contemplated, and that the indictment furnishes no means for ascertaining in what this matter consists, by reference or otherwise.
It is clear that the defences here advanced, if they be well founded, assert not that the indictment is formally defective, *50but that it fails on its face to state an offence. The defect is therefore not one of form under Rev. Stat. § 1025. On both principle and authority such error goes to the existence of the indictment, and consequently is essentially one of substance. Ex parte Bain., 121 U. S. 1. This is especially applicable to a case where, by the Constitution, the accused cannot be prosecuted except on presentment by a grand jury. That the mere silence or acquiescence of the accused cannot deprive him of his constitutional fight is obvious. In Hopt v. Utah, 110 U S. 571, speaking through Mr. Justice Harlan, the court said (p. 579).:
We are of opinion that it was not within the power of the accused or his counsel to dispense with the statutory requirements as to his personal presence at the trial. The argument to the contrary necessarily proceeds upon the ground that he alone is concerned as to the mode by which he may be deprived of his life or liberty, and that the chief object of the prosecution is to punish him for the crime charged. But this is a mistaken view as well of the relations which the accused holds to the public as of the end of human punishment.' The natural life, says Blackstone, ' cannot legally be disposed of or destroyed by any individual, neither by the person himself, nor by any other of his fellow-creatures, merely qpon their own authority.’ (1 Bl. Com. 141.) The public has an interest in his life and liberty. Neither can be lawfully taken except in the mode prescribed by law. That which the law makes essential in proceedings involving the deprivation of life or liberty cannot be dispensed with or affected by the cohsent of the accused, much less by his mere failure, when on trial and in custody, to object to unauthorized methods. The great end of punishment is not the expiation or atonement of the offence committed, but the prevention of future offences of the same kind. (4 Bl. Com. 11.) Such being the relation which the citizen holds to the public, and the object of punishment for public - wrongs, the legislature has deemed it essential to the protection of one whose life or liberty is involved in a prosecution for felony, that he shall be personally present at the *51trial, that is, at every stage of the trial when his substantial rights may be affected by the proceedings against him. If he be deprived of his life or liberty without being so present, such deprivation would be without that due process of law required by the Constitution.”
Doubtless it was like reasoning which caused the court in Commonwealth v. Maher, 16 Pick. 120, to refuse, in a capital case, to allow an amendment as' to a matter of substance even with the consent of the prisoner, and which also made the court in Commonwealth v. McCance set aside the verdict against the accused. In accord with this view is the doctrine which denies the power, even by statute, to authorize amendments which substantially change an indictment. The result of the authorities to this effect is thus stated by Bishop: “ If, in a case where the Constitution gives the defendant the right to be tried by an indictment, the legislature should undertake to authorize such amendments as leave the indictment no longer the finding of the grand jury, an amendment under it would oust the jurisdiction of the court, and the cause must stop. Such is the substance of the authorities, though the doctrine is not always stated in these words.” (1 Bish. New Crim. Proc. § 97, p. 55, and authorities there cited; Whart. Crim. Pl. & Prac. § 90, sub. 2, and authorities there cited.) The legislative authority not being competent to authorize an amendment so as to convert a void into a valid indictment, surely a prosecuting officer can have no such power.
The indictment, being, as we think, fatally defective in failing to state an offence, which defect could not be supplied in the court below, and cannot be so supplied here without converting an absolutely void into a valid indictment, and thus violating the Constitution which secures the accused an immunity from prosecution except upon presentment by a grand jury, the verdict and judgment should be reversed.