Walter v. Slaton, s. 26312
| Decision Date | 13 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | 26326,26313,Nos. 26312,26332,26316,s. 26312 |
| Citation | 227 Ga. 676,182 S.E.2d 464 |
| Parties | Patricia Reiley WALTER et al. v. Lewis R. SLATON, District Attorney et al. William WALTER et al. v. Lewis R. SLATON, District Attorney, et al. (three cases). Carl SANTAY v. Lewis R. SLATON, District Attorney, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The procedure followed in each of these cases was approved by this court in Evans Theatre Corp. v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712, as against substantially the same objections as were made in these cases. The ex parte orders issued did not operate as prior restraints on the showing of the films but were merely the proper exercise by the court of its power to preserve its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation until hearings could be had.
2. The ex parte restraining orders having been supplanted by temporary injunctions, questions respecting their validity are moot.
3. The evidence in each case authorized the issuance of a temporary injunction.
Glenn Zell, Atlanta, for appellants, Patricia Reiley Walter, William Walter and others.
Stanley H. Nylen, Atlanta, Arthur Schwartz, Denver, Colo., for appellant, Carl Santay.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Hinson McAuliffe, Sol., Tony H. Hight, Tom Moran, Assts. Sol. Gen., Frank Bowers, Atlanta, for appellees.
The ultimate question in each of these cases is the validity of an order passed in each case by a Judge of the Superior Court of Fulton County finding that a described 16 millimeter film, which had theretofore been exhibited and was being exhibited at the time by the defendants to the public, was hard core pornography and restraining further showing of such film by the defendants. Each case was commenced as a civil action by the District Attorney of the Superior Court of Fulton County jointly with the Solicitor of the Criminal Court of Fulton County. In each case the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants named therein were conducting a business of exhibiting motion picture films to members of the public; that they were in control and possession of the described motion picture film which they were exhibiting to the public on a fee basis; that said film 'constitutes a flagrant violation of Ga.Code § 26-2101 in that the sole and dominant theme of the motion picture film * * * considered as a whole, and applying contemporary standards, appeals to the prurient interest in sex and nudity, and that said motion picture film is utterly and absolutely without any redeeming social value whatsoever and transgresses beyond the customary limits of candor in describing and discussing sexual matters.' Then follows a brief description of the contents of the film in each case, and finally the complaint in each case alleges that under the law applied to such matters an adversary hearing to determine the question of obscenity must first be had prior to seizure of the film and the destruction thereof. The prayers were for service on the defendants, the issuance of a rule nisi requiring the defendants to show cause on a day certain why the films descirbed in each case should not be declared obscene and subject to seizure; that the defendants be directed to have and to produce on the hearing of said matter the motion picture film involved; that the film be declared obscene and subject to seizure; that the defendants and each of them be temporarily and permanently enjoined from exhibiting the picture and that each of them be temporarily restrained and enjoined from destroying, altering, concealing or removing it from the jurisdiction of the court, and that the plaintiffs have such other and further relief as may to the court seem meet and proper. None of the complaints were verified, but were merely signed by an assistant solicitor of the Criminal Court of Fulton County and an assistant district attorney of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit as attorneys for the plaintiffs.
Upon each complaint, a Judge of the Superior Court of Fulton County signed an ex parte order requiring the defendants to show cause before him at a time therein fixed ranging from one to three days thereafter why the prayers of plaintiff's complaint should not be granted and the motion picture referred to therein be declared obscene. He further ordered that the defendants have and produce before the court on the appointed date one print of the motion picture film referred to in the complaint, together with proper equipment for exhibiting and viewing the same, or, in the alternative, to provide a suitable location for that purpose wherein the film could be viewed by the court, and in each case he temporarily restrained and enjoined the defendants from concealing, destroying, altering or from removing the motion picture involved from the jurisdiction of the court. On the day on which the order was signed by the trial judge, a copy of the complaint, together with a copy of the order and a summons, was served on the defendants named in each complaint. In each case the hearing to determine whether the film in question was obscene was held on the day set by the order. In each case the trial court, after viewing the film in question, either at the theatre operated by the defendants or in the courtroom and after hearing argument of counsel found that there is probable cause to believe that the film in question is obscene and hard core pornography as a matter of fact and as a matter of law, and he ordered the seizure of one copy of the film from the possession of the defendants and the retention of the same in the custody of the Solicitor General of the Criminal Court of Fulton County until further order of the court. He further restrained and enjoined the defendants from distributing and exhibiting or showing the film in any theatre or any other place where the public is permitted within the jurisdiction of the court.
1. In each of the cases, Nos. 26312, 26313, 26316 and 26326, appellants contend that the court 'erred in proceeding with the complaint in the absence of statutory standards, provision for jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton 8212 1051
...of the exhibition of obscene materials. See 1024 Peachtree Corp. v. Slaton, 228 Ga. 102, 184 S.E.2d 144 (1971); Walter v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 182 S.E.2d 464 (1971); Evans Theatre Corp. v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712 (1971). While this procedure is civil in nature, and does not dire......
-
State v. Aiuppa
...Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712 (1971) (dealing with 'acts of sexual intercourse, natural, unnatural, bizzare, and violent'); Walter v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 182 S.E.2d 464 (1971) ('actual sexual activity, both natural and unnatural,' including sexual intercourse, fellatio and cunnilingus); 1024 Pea......
-
Slaton v. Paris Adult Theatre I
...(1971), we dealt with depictions of 'acts of sexual intercourse, natural, unnatural, bizarre, and violent.' In Walter v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 680, 182 S.E.2d 464, 467 (1971), the films were of 'actual sexual activity, both natural and unnatural,' which included sexual intercourse, fellatio ......
-
Good v. State
...Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 77 S.Ct. 1325, 1 L.Ed.2d 1469; Metro Theater v. Slaton, 228 Ga. 102, 184 S.E.2d 144; Walter v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 182 S.E.2d 464; Evans Theater Corp. v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712, all of which involve condemnation or injunction The test of law......