Court Opinion

ID: 9764946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:45:08.817743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:15.932105
License: Public Domain

Murphy, C.J.,
delivered the majority opinion of the Court. Powers, J., dissents. Dissenting opinion by Powers, J., at page 250 infra.
*249Appellant was convicted at a court trial of violating the State’s obscenity law, Maryland Code, Article 27, Section 418, by possessing, with intent to distribute, an issue of a newspaper publication known as the “Quicksilver Times.” On appeal he claims the court erred in finding the publication obscene.
The State introduced the publication in evidence, claimed it to be hard-core pornography, and rested its case. It pointed out to the court that on five of the twenty-eight pages of the publication, a number of profane words were used, principally “fuck” and “motherfucker.” It also invited the court’s attention to an advertisement on page 27 of the paper under the general heading “Intercourse,” as follows:
“Dear Myrtle, whoever the fuck you are: Besides my just happening to be the world’s greatest living human being, I just happen to love you, you cunt. * * *, signed, The Real, Living Jesus Christ, a/k/a Chief Showcase.”
The court’s attention was also directed to the “fuck ads,” also appearing on page 27, wherein the following appeared :
“ATTENTION: Men and Women: Now you too can have your own PENIS (artificial) — BIG like a BULL (9 inches!!) Soft like a lover — flesh color or soul black — Adults Only, please — lowest price ever — only $7 (send cash, check or money order to Imperial Imports * * *.) ”
The appellant adduced expert testimony that the publication was not obscene within the legal criteria established by the Supreme Court in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, and its progeny.
The court found that the publication was hard-core pornography, requiring no expert testimony to establish that it was obscene. See Donnenberg v. State, 1 Md. App. 591; Levin v. State, 1 Md. App. 139. The court’s conclu*250sion was primarily predicated on its belief that the so-called “fuck ad” on page 27 contaminated and polluted the entire twenty-eight page publication and rendered it obscene in its entirety.
In obscenity cases we are required to make an independent, reflective, constitutional judgment on the facts. Dillingham v. State, 9 Md. App. 669, and cases cited at page 673. We have done so, considering the publication as a whole, as did the lower court. The publication is typical of many now in circulation which are generally characterized as “underground newspapers”; it is mainly devoted to matters of particular interest to the so-called “new left.” It contains articles commenting on contemporary events, both of a political and general nature, in a caustic and irreverent manner; the feature articles in the publication dealt with the women’s liberation movement and abortion reform. Except for the occasional use of the words “fuck” and “motherfucker” on five pages of the paper, the only other items alleged to be obscene were the “Intercourse” advertisement and “fuck ads” on page 27. Gross and repulsive though they be, we conclude, under the present state of federal constitutional law, that the publication, considered as a whole, is not hard-core pornography or otherwise legally obscene. See Woodruff v. State, 11 Md. App. 202; Dillingham v. State, supra; Lancaster v. State, 7 Md. App. 602; Donnenberg v. State, supra; Levin v. State, supra. In so concluding, we have considered, but find no evidence of pandering in this case. Compare Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463.

Judgment reversed without a new trial. Costs to be paid by the County Commissioners of St. Mary’s County.