*1 900 147-148. For the reasons stated S.,
413 at U. 47 California, 15, in Miller 413 U. S.
dissent v. judg since the grant certiorari, Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was ment of the Court Orito, that rendered after questions no to consider whether the other have presented merit review. See York, (1973) 494 483, S. from
Finally, not adjudged materials was by applying local standards. Based on States, v. United 418 U. 87, S. consistent with the Due Process petitioner must be Clause, and to introduce evidence relevant on, even on its own
terms, the Court should below remand for a determination whether should be afforded a new trial under local Sandquist
No. 74-1430. App. Dept., v. California. Super. Cal., County Ct. Angeles. Certiorari de- nied. being of the view, stated Justice Douglas, previous opinions1 his and those of Mr. Justice Black,2 certiorari and reverse the Justices who do not insist that the case be decided on the merits. Miller v. 15, (1973) 413 U. (dissenting); 42-47 Paris Adult Theatre I v. 49, (1973) (dis 413 U. S. 70-73 Massachusetts, Memoirs v. senting) ; 413, (.1966) 383 U. S. 426-433 Ginzburg States, (concurring v. United judgment); 383 U. S. Roth (1966) (dissenting); v. United 491-492 (1957) (dissenting). 508-514 Ginzburg States, supra, United Mishkin (dissenting); at 476 New 515-518 (dissenting). state or federal ban or regulation ob- of,
scenity abridges freedom speech press con- *2 trary to the and First Fourteenth Amendments, would grant summarily certiorari and judgment. reverse the Justice with whom Mr. and Mr. Justice Marshall join, dissenting.
Petitioner was convicted in the Municipal Court of Angeles of exhibiting allegedly pic- obscene motion in tures of Cal. Penal Code § 311.2 violation provides which pertinent in part as follows:
“(a) Every person knowingly . . . exhibits to others, guilty matter obscene is of a misdemeanor.” in 311.2,
As used § “ ‘Obscene matter’ means as a matter, whole, taken predominant appeal the of which average per- to the son, applying contemporary prurient is to standards, interest, e., a or i. shameful morbid interest nudity, or is which sex, excretion; and matter taken substantially a goes beyond customary as whole lim- of or description representation its candor of such matters; is matter and which taken as whole is utterly without social redeeming importance.” § 311 (a) 1975). (Supp. Appellate Department Superior
On the the of appeal, of County Court California for the Los Angeles affirmed the conviction. Certification the to Court of Appeal was sought denied. is view
It that “at least absence distribu juveniles exposure to or tion obtrusive to unconsenting adults, prohibit First Fourteenth Amendments Federal the State and Governments from attempting wholly suppress sexually to oriented materials on the basis their ‘obscene’ Paris Adult contents.” allegedly (1973) (Brennan, Theatre by that constitu clear It is tested J., dissenting). incorporates the definition 311.2, as it standard, § tional constitutionally is over- (a), in 311§ of “obscene matter” face. For the reasons invalid on its broad and therefore in Miller v. stated since Appellate Department was rendered Miller, have no
after questions pre the other consider whether sented merit review. See from the Further, materials was not *3 by
adjudged applying local standards. Based on v. United consistent Proc with the Due Clause, petitioner ess must be and to introduce evidence rele
vant even on terms, its own the Court should below and remand for a determination whether should be afforded new trial under local No. 74 - 6176. Sup. Ct. Iowa. Iowa. Certiorari denied. Doug- with whom Mr. Justice
Mr. Justice las and Marshall concur, dissenting.
On September 27, 1971, petitioner charged was in an in- formation filed in the Justice of the Peace Court Vinton, Iowa, driving with reckless of an automobile in- and reverse the the Justices do not insist that the case be decided on the merits.