Culbertson v. State of California, 21675.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 21675.,21675. |
| Citation | 385 F.2d 209 |
| Parties | Jack Ray CULBERSTON, Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Harry Ellman, Melvyn Steim, San Diego, Cal., for appellant.
Edward T. Butler, City Atty., Kenneth Lounsberry, San Diego, Cal., for appellee.
Before MERRILL and ELY, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, District Judge.
In the Municipal Court of the San Diego, California Judicial District, appellant was convicted of violating section 311.2 of the California Penal Code.1 The statute, in effect, proscribes the sale of obscene material. The appellant was the proprietor of a San Diego newspaper and magazine store. The charge and subsequent conviction rested upon his sale of a packet containing twelve photographs. Only one of the pictures was visible through the cellophane wrapping of the packet. After all California state court remedies had been exhausted, appellant filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus in the court below. This appeal is from the District Court's denial of the petition.
We have examined the photographs in question. Each depicts four scantily clad women whose poses might be provocative to some. The pictures are not artistic, but we are thoroughly convinced that they are not "hard-core" pornography and that they do not, in their expression, go "substantially beyond customary limits of candor." See Redrup v. State of New York, 386 U.S. 767, 87 S.Ct. 1414, 18 L.Ed.2d 515 (1967); Jacobellis v. State of Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 84 S.Ct. 1676, 12 L.Ed.2d 793 (1964); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957). This was the view of the dissenting member of the three-judge California appellate court which affirmed the state court conviction, and we agree with it.
Upon remand, the District Court will grant the petition and direct that the appellant be discharged.
Reversed.
1 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 prepares, publishes, prints, exhibits, distributes, or offers to distribute, or has in his possession with intent to distribute or to exhibit or offer to distribute, any obscene matter is guilty of a misdemeanor."
A preceding statute, section 311, provides, in part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Summerlin v. Sheriff, Huron County, Ohio
...mem., 400 U.S. 922, 91 S.Ct. 185, 27 L.Ed.2d 183 (1970); Wasserman v. Municipal Court, 449 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1970); Culbertson v. California, 385 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1967); Wenzler v. Pitchess, 359 F.2d 402 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 388 U.S. 912, 87 S.Ct. 2096, 18 L.Ed.2d 1351 (1967). ......
-
United States v. 77 Cartons of Magazines
...1 (1966); United States v. A Motion Picture Film Entitled "I Am Curious — Yellow", 404 F.2d 196 (2d Cir.1968); Culbertson v. California, 385 F.2d 209 (9th Cir.1967). Before applying the Roth test, it should be noted that recent cases have indicated that an additional requirement may be nece......
-
Hewitt v. Maryland State Bd. of Censors
...interpreting the decision in Redrup. These cases are Luros v. United States, 389 F.2d 200, 205 (8th Cir. 1968); Culbertson v. California, 385 F.2d 209, 210 (9th Cir. 1967); United States v. 4400 Copies of Magazines, 276 F.Supp. 902 (D.Md.1967); and State v. J. L. Marshall News Co., 13 Ohio ......
-
Childs v. State of Oregon
...habeas corpus cases on several occasions. See, e. g., Pinkus v. Pitchess, 429 F.2d 416 (9th Cir. June 29, 1970); Culbertson v. California, 385 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1967); Wenzler v. Pitchess, 359 F.2d 402 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 388 U.S. 912, 87 S.Ct. 2096, 18 L.Ed.2d 1351 Applying the......