Court Opinion

ID: 9771480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:44:51.909591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:31.906035
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
DAVIDSON, Judge,
(concurring).
I concur in the reversal of this conviction. I would reverse it, however, for the reason that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Especially is this true in that there is no evidence that appellant knew or had knowledge of the contents of the magazines or that such magazines offended against the statute.
The learned trial judge instructed the jury that “The terms ‘knowingly’ as used in this charge is defined as an act which is consciously and willfully done.” “Willful” means “intentional.”
The jury was instructed to the effect that if appellant “did not have any knowledge of the contents of the magazine [s]” she should be acquitted. The undisputed evidence so shows.
“Malone’s News Stand,” situated on one of the principal streets of downtown Houston, was engaged in the business of *235selling newspapers, magazines, and publications, generally. The owner and operator thereof was the husband of the appellant.
In the operation of the place of business, appellant assisted in- the morning hours on a relief basis. She had nothing to do with the general operation of the business or the buying or selection of the publications to be sold or offered for sale.
About 11 o’clock, a.m., on the day of the alleged offense, two vice-squad policemen of the city of Houston went to the newsstand and there selected three magazines from among other periodicals in excess of five thousand displayed and offered for sale on the -newsstand.
The officers took the magazines to the appellant, who was in charge of the cash register, and paid her $1, the price she fixed for the three magazines.
• Appellant had been at work only a short time. There was evidence that none of the magazines purchased had been on the newsstand more than two days prior to the sale. There was no direct evidence that appellant knew of the contents of the magazines or that she had anything to: do -with the the selection of the magazines to be sold and offered for sale. If appellant ever saw the magazines prior to the sale there is no evidence to so show.
. In the light of what has been said it is apparent that appellant’s knowledge of the contents of the magazines is imputed and made to depend, alone, upon the fact that she, as cashier, received the purchase money for the ones which the police officers had selected of their own accord without any suggestion, or assistance from her.
To my mind, the insufficiency of the evidence is thus demonstrated.
The statute under which this prosecution is brought is unconstitutional and invalid for the reason that it is so indefinitely framed and of such doubtful construction that it can not be understood from the language in which it is expressed and is therefore insufficient as a penal statute.
I cited the authorities supporting that rule in my dissenting opinion in Rowland v. State, 166 Tex. Cr. R. 118, 311 S. W. 2d 842.
*236Art. 527, Vernon’s P. C., under which this prosecution is brought, does not penalize the sale or possession of obscene publications, generally, but makes unlawful and penalizes the sale or possession of only such publications as are “devoted mainly or purporting to be devoted mainly” to obscene matters.
This means that a publication does not offend against the statute and is therefore not unlawful unless and until such publication is principally devoted to the subject matter denounced. What constitutes “mainly” is left entirely to the viewpoint of those seeking to enforce the law.
So, then, the statute is not one penalizing the sale or possession of obscene literature but, rather, the sale and possession of publications devoted mainly to obscenity. It makes no difference how obscene any publication may be, it is not unlawful unless in its entirety the publication is mainly obscene.
The offense created, therefore, punishes the amount of obscenity in the publication rather than the outlawry of obscene literature entirely.
So far as I am concerned, a publication containing one page of obscene matter is just as obnoxious and harmful and should be outlawed the same as one in which the majority of the pages are mainly devoted to obscenity.
I am at a loss to understand how the amount of obscenity in a publication could determine its lawfulness. If the publication is obscene at all, it ought to be outlawed because of that fact; the amount of obscenity therein ought not to be the determining factor of guilt.
Who determines if the publication is obscene? Who determines when an obscene publication is devoted mainly to obscene matters? It is not the legislature of this state, for it has not said. The legislature is without power or authority to delegate to some law enforcing agency or court the right to make that determination. It is the exclusive province of the legislature to write the criminal laws of this state by and thru which men are tried for their liberty.