Court Opinion

ID: 9695340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:15:47.991573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:10.905861
License: Public Domain

HEFLIN, Chief Justice
(concurring):
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion in this case, and I am in basic agreement as to the rationale employed. There are some points, however, which, I feel, need to be clarified.
First, I think that there is no doubt that the statute involved, Title 14, Sections 374(16j)-374(16o), Alabama Code of 1940, as amended (Recompiled 1958) (Supp. 1971), meets the constitutional requirements of specificity established by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973). This statute compares favorably with the statutes from Oregon and Hawaii which the Supreme Court in Miller suggested would pass constitutional muster.
Second, while I do not agree with the generalized treatment given the issue of retrospectivity by the majority opinion, I don’t think there is any problem of retro-\ spective application of Miller standards in this case. The statute as written is as specific as Miller requires and was when petitioner was indicted and convicted. Furthermore, the jury applied the old “utterly” standard and not the current “serious” standard of Miller. An independent examination of the evidence demonstrates that the jury’s determination that the matter was utterly without redeeming social value was correct. If a defendant has had the benefit of the “utterly” test, then it is inescapable that he has had benefit of the “serious” test, because any matter which is utterly without value could have no serious value. See Pierce v. State, 292 Ala. 473, 296 So.2d 218 (1974).
I feel, however, that under some circumstances ex post facto considerations are applicable to judicial decisions, especially where judicial engraftments favorable to the prosecution are added to a statute. Since there is a difference of opinion on the issue of retrospective application of Miller to conduct which occurred prior to Miller’s issuance, not only among members of this court but among courts around the country, see Chobot v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, 61 Wis.2d 354, 212 N. W.2d 690 (1973) (limiting construction may be applied to punish conduct occurring prior to the construction); State v. Welke, Minn., 216 N.W.2d 641 (1974) (construction in case at bar does not afford requisite notice with respect to sale four years ago). I feel constrained to elaborate upon my views of this issue.
The difficulty arises, in my view, because of two factors: (1) The Supreme Court limits the scope of state regulation of obscenity to “sexual conduct specifically described” but apparently invites courts to cure defects in statutes by judicial construction, and (2) the court eliminates the “utterly without redeeming social value” test which was very difficult to meet, and replaces it with the “[without] serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” test which is a standard less difficult for the prosecution to meet. These two developments must be considered independently *468if a clear understanding of thé potential ex post facto problems of Miller is to be had.
Assume first that Miller had been issued without any mention of judicial construction supplying the required specificity. As of June 21, 1973, the constitutional rule would be that for a statute to be valid (and a prosecution under it to be upheld) the statute would have to have defined obscenity in terms of sexual conduct specifically described. From that day forth any court reviewing an obscenity conviction would begin by examining the statute under which the defendant was tried. If the statute as written was specific at the time the alleged violation occurred then the conviction could be affirmed, but if not, it could not be. There is no question of retrospective application — the statute .either was specific or it was not, and the decision would turn on that point.
In Miller, however, the court went a step further. The decision indicates that the statute as written or construed must be limited as mentioned. If, prior to Miller, the statute had been construed to be limited to “sexual conduct” and that conduct specifically described in the opinions so construing the statute, then the defect of vagueness would have been cured by prior judicial construction and the defendant could not complain that he did not have notice of the activity proscribed. In such instance a defendant’s conviction under the previously judicially construed statute would be valid. Pierce v. State, supra (statute limited by previous construction); United States v. Thevis, 484 F.2d 1149 (5th Cir. 1973) (Title 18 U.S.C.A., § 1462 (1970) “has been the subject of much explication in Supreme Court opinions,” thus the court sustained convictions on this issue); Rhodes v. State, 283 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1973) (conviction upheld because cases since 1969 and before Miller had construed obscenity statute).
But what if there had been no prior construction of the statute, and as written, it was not specific as Miller required? Clearly, the statute would fail to pass the vagueness muster and the conviction would have to be reversed. State v. Welke, supra.
But the court in Miller indicated that the judicial construction could be supplied subsequent to the issuance of Miller itself. Does this mean that in deciding pending cases, a court can affirm a conviction by construing the statute in the very case before it as being specific enough to meet the Miller requirement? How can it be said that the defendant had noticed that his actions were criminal when the alleged crime was committed if the court only clarifies what the statute means now — a year or two after the allegedly criminal acts.
In construing a statute the court is essentially performing a legislative act. This is especially true in instances where the court is curing some constitutional defect by construction. See Art Theater Guild, Inc. v. State, Tenn., 14 Crim.L.Rptr. 2497 (Tenn. Feb. 19, 1974) (“The function of this Court is to interpret a statute . and [it] cannot usurp the prerogatives of the legislature by supplying essential elements to a statute which have been omitted . .”). Thus, even though as a general rule ex post facto principles may not apply to court decisions, clearly in a case like that described above, ex post facto principles should be considered. See United States v. Lang, 361 F.Supp. 380 (C.D. Cal.1973) (Application of Miller standards in pending case is “the functional equivalent of an ex post facto application of the law.”) In a case where there is no prior authoritative construction, the courts’ adoption of a Miller type- construction can only operate prospectively. That is, from the date the court adopts a specific construction properly limiting the statute, all potential wrongdoers will have notice as to what activity is outside the scope of the statute. The statute will be, by construction as of the date of the opinion, as specific as Miller requires. But to attempt to have the construction relate back one or two years or more in order to affirm pending cases *469would clearly operate as a denial of due process.
In Papp v. State, 281 So.2d 600 (Fla. App.1973), the Florida District Court of Appeals, Fourth District had this precise issue before it. That court stated:
“The [Florida obscenity] statute is susceptible of judicial construction by which its scope may be limited to ‘obscene material’ as defined in Miller v. California, supra. It is our view, however, that for this court to so construe the statute and at the same time apply it to Mr. Papp’s conduct which was brought into question in the courts of this state before the statute had been thus limited by judicial construction, would amount to a denial to Papp of due process of law, because at the time of his alleged offense [1969] neither the statute nor judicial construction thereof gave adequate notice of the conduct sought to be proscribed.”
See also Stroud v. State, Ind., 300 N.E.2d 100 (1973).
The second aspect of the Miller case mentioned above which tends to cause confusion as far as ex post principles are concerned is the new social value norm. The Miller decision lightens the burden the state must carry in proving the matter before the court is obscene since it is no longer necessary to meet the “utterly without social value” test but instead the state need only prove the matter has no “serious literary, artistic, etc., value.” Hence, in the future prosecutors should have a less burdensome burden of proof in this connection.
In pending cases, however, there should be little doubt but that the heavier burden must have been carried at trial. In United States v. Thevis, supra, the defendants had been convicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6, 1462 (1970) for transporting obscene matter by common carriers in interstate commerce. The trial court had found the material to be obscene under the three-pronged Roth-Memoirs formulation. While the appeal to the Fifth Circuit was pending the Miller decision was issued. The appellant in Thevis argued that the Miller tests replaced the Roth-Memoirs tests but that the Miller tests could not be given a retroactive effect. The court stated that out of an abundance of caution it would apply both the Roth-Memóirs and the Miller tests “with the appellants ... to receive the benefit of the most favorable standard.” The effect of such application was that the Fifth Circuit did not apply the Miller test of social value retroactively since the Roth-Memoirs standard was more favorable to the defendant.
The Supreme Court of Florida handled this matter with the following language:
“On the matter of standards of obscenity, the U.S. Supreme Court has now afforded a sensible test and guidelines in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973), decided on June 21, 1973. The new test will no doubt prove more effective in future infractions of § 847.011 and of the new Fla.Stat. Ch. 73-120. We cannot, in our view, however, by reason of ex post facto principles apply new standards in the now-judicially-approved ‘new test’ of obscenity to earlier offenses in determining the sufficiency of the statutory language to warn the average person of common intelligence as to what constitutes the prohibited offense. This is particularly true of ‘(c)’ of the test in Miller as to ‘literary, etc. value’. It may or may not be true of (a) and (b) in view of our statutory language and its construction as it may have been published as notice to an offender on the date of the offense in question.
“Sub judice the test set forth in these latest U.S. judicial holdings with respect to ‘c’ (‘literary value’) as to what now constitutes obscenity was not available *470on May 5, 1971, as amplification of the notice to appellant of the proscribed conduct; such a modification of the old test in the new holdings cannot now be echoed to the date of the earlier offense. The ‘old test’ (Memoirs v. Mass., 383 U. S. 413, 419, 86 S.Ct. 975, 978, 16 L.Ed.2d 1 (1966) ) that the allegedly obscene matter be ‘utterly without redeeming social value’, must apply in such instance, for such was the test upon which defendant was on notice of the date (May 5, 1971) of the alleged violation.” Rhodes v. State, supra.
The Florida Court went on to hold that the “utterly” test had been properly applied below, and furthermore, that judicial construction of the Florida obscenity statute since 1969 but before Miller supplied any needed particularity in the statute.
Another clear expression of the principles involved in applying Miller is found in United States v. Lang, supra:
“The newly formulated Miller test eases the prosecution’s burden, and enhances the likelihood of successful prosecution. The new test simply requires that the prosecution show, inter alia, that ‘the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.’ Miller, supra, 413 U.S. at 24, 93 S.Ct. at 2615 (emphasis added). In short, the Court’s new test substantially changes the law of obscenity, and as a general proposition now makes it easier to convict the defendants. Therefore, to prosecute defendants under the judicially devised Miller definition of obscenity and to instruct the jury on it would, without fig leaves, be the functional equivalent of an ex post facto application of the law. This the due process clause forbids. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L. Ed.2d 894 (1964). Moreover, to apply retroactively the judicial construction now placed on § 1461 would further deprive defendants of due process by having denied them fair warning that their acts, when committed, constituted a crime.”
In summary, it seems clear that, for pending prosecutions, Miller requires this court to examine the statute and prior cases under it to determine whether the defendant was given proper notice of what constituted the crime. Moreover, it is abundantly clear that the only social value norm which can constitutionally be applied in cases pending at the time Miller was issued is the more stringent “utterly” test. Thus the courts must examine convictions obtained prior to Miller in light of these potential ex post facto problems.
Since the statute here applicable meets the Miller requirements of specificity and since the defendant was given the benefit of the “utterly” test at trial and upon review before this court there is no reversible error in the record on these issues.