Court Opinion

ID: 9558141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:03:21.948691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:22.059266
License: Public Domain

Dimmick, J.
(dissenting) — I agree that this court's authoritative construction in State v. J-R Distribs., Inc., 82 Wn.2d 584, 512 P.2d 1049 (1973) may have been constitutionally overbroad. I cannot agree, however, that petitioners' convictions must be vacated and the cause remanded for a new trial. It is clear upon viewing the films that a juror would not be misled by the omission of the words "patently offensive" in one section of the instruction where they did appear in another part of that same instruction. This technicality should not constitute reversible error in the instant case. The oft-quoted statement of Justice Stewart in defining pornography that "I know it when I see it," Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197, 12 L. Ed. 2d 793, 84 S. *59Ct. 1676 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring), is apt here.
Brachtenbach, C.J., and Dore, J., concur with Dimmick, J.