Cragg v. State
| Citation | 160 S.E.2d 817,224 Ga. 196 |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24510,24510 |
| Parties | Arthur CRAGG v. The STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
John G. Davis, Clayton, for appellant.
Herbert B. Kimzey, Solicitor General, Cornelia, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
We review here an order overruling a demurrer to an indictment charging the appellant, Arthur Cragg, with the offense of 'possessing obscene pictures.'
The indictment charged the appellant 'did unlawfully possess and have in his possession and under his control indecent and obscene photographs and negative film of a nude girl exhibiting her private parts and of nude girls exhibiting their private parts the said photographs and negative films tending to debauch the morals of persons to whom the same was exhibited and when considered as a whole the predominant appeal of said pictures and negative films is to prurient interest and a shameful and morbid interest in nudity and sex.'
The indictment sought to charge an offense under Code § 26-6301 as amended by the Act of 1963 (Ga.L.1963, pp. 78, 79) which provides: 'Any person * * * who shall knowingly have possession of, or who shall knowingly exhibit * * * any obscene matter * * * shall * * * be guilty of a felony * * * As used herein, a matter is obscene if, considered as a whole, applying contemporary community standards, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, i.e., a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion.' Held:
1. The first ground of the demurrer, that the indictment is duplicitous in that it charges (a) unlawful possession and (b) exhibition of obscene photographs and negative film, is without merit. The indictment charges only 'possessing obscene pictures.'
2. The second ground of the demurrer charges that the indictment fails to charge that the appellant 'knowingly' had in his possession any matter alleged in the indictment. No error is enumerated on this ground.
3. Grounds 3, 4 and 5 of the demurrer, which complain that the indictment fails to allege (a) the name of a nude girl or that the name is unknown, (b) to whom any photograph or negative film had been exhibited and (c) what community may be involved or what standards may exist in such community, have been examined and found to be without substance.
4. Ground 6 of the demurrer asserts that the portion of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. State
...within the provisions of the law. Shadrick v. Bledsoe, 186 Ga. 345, 198 S.E. 535. Uniformity does not mean universality. Cragg v. State, 224 Ga. 196, 160 S.E.2d 817, and see Murphy v. West, 205 Ga. 116, 52 S.E.2d 600. This answers enumeration of error No. 17 in that Code § 59-710 does not a......
-
Robinson v. State, 54054
...Westfall v. State, 4 Ga.App. 834, 838(1), 62 S.E. 558 (1908); Young v. State, 4 Ga.App. 827(4), 62 S.E. 558 (1908). See Cragg v. State, 224 Ga. 196, 160 S.E.2d 817 (1968); Milhollan v. State, 221 Ga. 165, 166(2), 143 S.E.2d 730 (1965). In this case, the appellant was charged with selling or......
- State v. Ross