Splawn v. California, No. 73-200

No. 73-200 | SCOTUS | Jan 7, 1974

Lead Opinion

Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1973-10-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/miller-v-california-108838?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="108838">413 U. S. 15 (1973); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1973-10-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/paris-adult-theatre-i-v-slaton-108839?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="108839">413 U. S. 49 (1973); Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1973-06-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/kaplan-v-california-108840?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="108840">413 U. S. 115 (1973); United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1973-06-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-12-200-ft-reels-of-super-8mm-film-108841?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="108841">413 U. S. 123 (1973); United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1973-06-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-orito-108842?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="108842">413 U. S. 139 (1973); Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1973-06-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/heller-v-new-york-108853?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="108853">413 U. S. 483 (1973); Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1973-06-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/roaden-v-kentucky-108854?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="108854">413 U. S. 496 (1973); and Alexander v. Virginia, 413 U.S. 836" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1973-10-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/alexander-v-virginia-108865?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="108865">413 U. S. 836 (1973). Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the view that state obscenity regulation is prohibited by the Fourteenth and First Amendments (see Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1973-10-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/paris-adult-theatre-i-v-slaton-108839?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="108839">413 U. S. 49, 70 (Douglas, J., dissenting)), would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment of conviction.

---

Dissenting Opinion

Mr. Justice Brennan, with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall join,

dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted on charges of selling obscene motion pictures in violation of § 311.2 (a) of the California Penal Code (1970), which provides as follows:

“Every person who knowingly sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or distribution, or in this state possesses, prepares, publishes, or prints, with intent to distribute or to exhibit to others, or who offers to distribute, distributes, or exhibits to others, any obscene matter is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

It is my view that “at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the State and Federal Governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly ‘obscene’ contents.” Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1973-10-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/paris-adult-theatre-i-v-slaton-108839?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="108839">413 U. S. 49, 113 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting). It is clear that, tested by that constitutional standard, § 311.2 (a) is constitutionally overbroad and therefore invalid on its face. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1973-10-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/miller-v-california-108838?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="108838">413 U. S. 15, 47 (1973), I would therefore grant certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeal of California, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with my dissent in Paris Adult Theatre I. In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the questions presented in the petition merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 495 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting);