Com. v. Moniz
| Citation | 143 N.E.2d 196,336 Mass. 178 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Antone T. MONIZ (two cases). COMMONWEALTH v. Benjamin P. ROGERS (three cases). |
| Decision Date | 04 June 1957 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Harry P. Haveles, Boston, for defendant Rogers.
James A. Heaney, Fall River, for defendant Moniz.
John J. Harrington, Asst. Dist. Atty., Fall River, for Commonwealth.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and RONAN, WILLIAMS, WHITTEMORE and CUTTER, JJ.
The defendants were tried in the Superior Court after appealing from convictions in a District Court on the following complaints:
Antone T. Moniz, on January 3, 1956, 'being a motion picture operator, did present a show or entertainment suggestive of lewdness, obscenity, indecency, immorality or impurity * * * in violation of section 32 chapter 272 of the General Laws.'
Antone T. Moniz, on January 3, 1956, 'did have in his possession for the purpose of exhibition and did publish and display certain obscene, indecent and impure prints, images, pictures and other things, to wit,--a series of motion picture films and did project, publish, display and exhibit said obscene, indecent and impure prints, images and pictures on a motion picture screen in violation of section 28A chapter 272 of the General Laws as amended.'
Benjamin P. Rogers, on January 3, 1956, 'being a manager, agent or employee did prepare, advertise, give or present a certain show or entertainment suggestive of lewdness, obscenity, indecency, immorality or impurity and in violation of chapter 272 section 32 of the General Laws.'
Benjamin P. Rogers, on January 3, 1956, 'did import, publish, procure or have in his possession obscene, indecent or impure prints, images, pictures and other things, to wit,--a series of motion picture films for the purpose of exhibition and did exhibit said obscene, indecent and impure prints, images and pictures by means of projecting said films on a screen in violation of section 28A chapter 272 of the General Laws as amended.'
Benjamin P. Rogers, on January 1, 1956, 'being the Lord's Day, did set up, offer to view, or participate in setting up and offering to view a certain public entertainment, to wit,--an indecent and impure picture by means of projecting said pictures on a screen said entertainment not being in keeping with the character of the day and being inconsistent with its due observance and in violation of chapter 136 section 3 of the General Laws.'
The complaints were phrased substantially in the language of the statutes to which they referred. There was evidence that Rogers as agent for a film distributing company arranged for, and on January 1, 2, and 3, 1956, caused a public showing at a theatre in Fall River of a motion picture entitled 'Garden of Eden.' He arranged for newspaper and poster advertising, rented the theatre and its personnel, and employed the defendant Moniz to operate the projection machine. The film itself and samples of newspaper and poster advertising were in evidence and the judge and jury viewed a showing of the film in its entirety. It depicted the experiences of an elderly man, a young woman and a child in a so called nudist colony. Members of the colony were shown in the nude, walking in the woods, bathing in the lake, lying on the shore, and playing games. Except for several scenes in which men and women were shown naked to the waist the pictorial representations of unclothed persons were views photographed from the rear.
At the conclusion of the evidence and subject to the exceptions of the respective defendants the judge directed the jury to return a verdict of guilty in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Ries
...Commonwealth v. Ross, 248 Mass. 15, 142 N.E. 791; Commonwealth v. Renfrew, 332 Mass. 492, 126 N.E.2d 109; compare Commonwealth v. Moniz, 336 Mass. ----, 143 N.E.2d 196) but he now contends that these facts do not bring the transactions here considered within G.L. c. 172, § 16. The defendant......
-
Com. v. Moniz
...for defendants. Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WILLIAMS, WHITTEMORE and CUTTER, JJ. WHITTEMORE, Justice. In Commonwealth v. Moniz, 336 Mass. 178, 143 N.E.2d 196, on June 4, 1957, and before the decision of Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498, we sustaine......
-
Amado v. Com.
...and G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 278, § 2, so far as they respectively may require a written waiver, have no application. Cf. Commonwealth v. Moniz, 336 Mass. 178, 180, 143 N.E.2d 196 (improper taking of criminal case from a jury); Id., 338 Mass. 442, 155 N.E.2d 2. When Silva's repetition of his testi......
-
Com. v. Claflin
...282--283, 284, 93 N.E.2d 819 (1950); Attorney Gen. v. 'Serenade,' 326 Mass. 324, 325--326, 94 N.E.2d 259 (1950); Commonwealth v. Moniz, 336 Mass. 178, 181, 143 N.E.2d 196 (1957).4 The defendant has not argued that either of the magazines here in issue is not obscene within the Roth standard......