Court Opinion

ID: 9528219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:38:32.366713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:02.876261
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
On the constitutional issues involved under the obscenity statutes here, see my dissent in State v. Little Art Corp., 191 Neb. 448, 215 N. W. 2d 853. It should be noted also that the obscenity statutes here have now been repealed and replaced by sections 28-926.11 et seq., R. S. Supp., 1974.
The additional problem involved is one of statutory interpretation in turning a single transaction into multiple offenses. The majority opinion affirms the conviction of the defendant on four counts of selling an obscene magazine, and a maximum fine of $1,000 on each count. The record shows that the four magazines were sold and purchased in just two separate transactions. Each of the two transactions involved two different magazines, both of which were purchased by the same individual at the same time.
Section 28-921, R. S. Supp., 1971, provided: “Whoever knowingly sells * * * any obscene, lewd, indecent, or lascivious book, pamphlet, paper * * * shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars nor less than fifty dollars, or by *297imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year, or both; * * *.”
It is unclear what the Legislature intended to declare where multiple pieces of obscene literature were sold in one transaction. To say the least, the statutory language is ambiguous in fixing the punishment. In 1955 in a case involving two counts of violating the Mann Act by transporting two women on the same trip in the same vehicle, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, speaking for the United States Supreme Court majority, determined that only one offense had been committed and said: “When Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity. And this is not out of any sentimental consideration, or for want of sympathy with the purpose of Congress in proscribing evil or anti-social conduct. It may fairly be said to be a presupposition of our law to resolve doubts in the enforcement of a penal code against the imposition of a harsher punishment. This in no wise implies that language used in criminal statutes should not be read with the saving grace of common sense with which other enactments, not cast in technical language, are to be read. Nor does it assume that offenders against the law carefully read the penal code before they embark on crime. It merely means that if Congress does not fix the punishment for a federal offense clearly and without ambiguity, doubt will be resolved against turning a single transaction into multiple offenses, when we have no more to go on than the present case furnishes.” Bell v. United States, 349 U. S. 81, 75 S. Ct. 620, 99 L. Ed. 905.
The principle has been extended to other federal penal statutes by the United States Supreme Court. In Castle v. United States, 368 U. S. 13, 82 S. Ct. 123, 7 L. Ed. 2d 75, the defendant was charged with five counts of knowingly and unlawfully transporting in interstate commerce five separate falsely made and forged money orders. The evidence was that the defendant personally *298transported the money orders from Indiana to Texas on the same trip and at the same time. In a per curiam opinion the Supreme Court held that the principles enunciated in Bell v. United States, supra, were controlling and remanded the case for resentencing on the basis that the defendant was guilty of only one offense. To the same effect, see, State v. Welch, 264 Ore. 388, 505 P. 2d 910; Commonwealth v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 350 S. W. 2d 465 (Ky. App., 1961).
In the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Carty, 447 F. 2d 965 (1971), the court again followed the Bell rationale and held that a defendant charged on three counts of interstate transportation of stolen firearms arising out of the transportation of three separate firearms at the same time constituted only one offense and that the defendant could not be separately charged simply because three separate firearms were involved. See, also, United States v. Deaton, 468 F. 2d 541, cert. den., 410 U. S. 934, 93 S. Ct. 1386, 35 L. Ed. 2d 597.
In at least one state the principles of Bell have been embodied in a statute. See M. S. A. § 609.035. Under that statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a defendant charged with exhibiting and selling 41 obscene photographs could be sentenced for only one offense. State v. Getman, 293 Minn. 11, 195 N. W. 2d 827, vacated on other grounds, 413 U. S. 912, 93 S. Ct. 3044, 37 L. Ed. 2d 1029.
The defendant in the case now before us was convicted and sentenced on four separate counts of selling an obscene magazine. There were just two separate sales and each involved two magazines. All doubts should be resolved against turning a single transaction into multiple offenses. The convictions and sentences on two counts here may have been proper, but the convictions and sentences on the other two counts were improper and should be vacated and dismissed.