Court Opinion

ID: 9692459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:54:48.133355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:34.634651
License: Public Domain

D. E. Holbrook, P. J.
(concurring). This writer concurs in the result achieved herein. The loss of exhibits renders review of defendant’s conviction impossible and, therefore, we must vacate his conviction. However, discussion of the substantive issues in the instant case should await resolution until such time as is necessary. This is particularly so herein where distribution of allegedly obscene material has served as a basis for criminal prosecution pursuant to a new obscenity statute, § 39-1-18.1 of the Municipal Code of the City of Detroit. Determination of invalidity of such a statute may well depend on the type of material that actually serves as a basis for prosecution under it regardless of the statutory language used. The statute may well appear valid, yet its actual use may well be constitutionally infirm. Pronouncement of constitutional validity, therefore, could result in prosecution in the future for distribution of constitutionally protected material. Such prosecutions might well be encouraged by an unnecessary *467finding of constitutional validity. Statutes which are designed to regulate obscene material must be carefully limited because of the possibility of First Amendment infringement. Miller v California, 413 US 15; 93 S Ct 2607; 37 L Ed 2d 419 (1973). However, material that is truly obscene is not protected by the First Amendment. Miller, supra, Roth v United States, 354 US 476; 77 S Ct 1304; 1 L Ed 2d 1498 (1957). This writer would decline to make any decision with regard to this statute until such time as it is necessary and can be considered on the basis of a full record. This writer must express disapproval with the majority’s opinion which, although well written and thorough, unnecessarily considers the validity of this statute.
This writer concurs in result only.