Hostetler v. State
| Decision Date | 03 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 54952,No. 2,54952,2 |
| Citation | 243 S.E.2d 256,145 Ga.App. 55 |
| Parties | M. R. HOSTETLER v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Glenn Zell, Atlanta, for appellant.
Hinson McAuliffe, Sol., Leonard W. Rhodes, Asst. Sol., Atlanta, for appellee.
Milton Hostetler appeals from his conviction of distributing obscene materials in violation of Criminal Code § 26-2101. We affirm.
1. A constitutional attack is made upon Criminal Code § 26-2101(c) which extends the definition of proscribed "obscene material" to "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." It is contended that this section is overbroad, arbitrary and capricious, that it constitutes an unreasonable invasion of an adult's or married couple's right of sexual privacy, and that no necessity or rational basis appears for the total prohibition of these types of devices. These arguments were rejected in Pierce v. State, 239 Ga. 844, 239 S.E.2d 28 (1977), followed this day in Underwood v. State, 144 Ga.App. 684, 242 S.E.2d 339 (1978).
2. We find insufficient cause for reversal in the failure of the trial court to charge verbatim Hostetler's requests 2, 3 and 4 since the principles were adequately covered in the charge as given. Teal v. State, 234 Ga. 159(3), 214 S.E.2d 888 (1975); Hunter v. State, 135 Ga.App. 172(1), 217 S.E.2d 172 (1975) and cases cited.
3. The questions sought to be raised by enumeration of error 11 have been decided adversely to Hostetler. Robinson v. State, 143 Ga.App. 37, 38(3), 237 S.E.2d 436 (1977).
4. Remaining arguments have been made and rejected in prior decisions and must similarly fail here. See Ballew v. State, 138 Ga.App. 530, 227 S.E.2d 65 (1976) and cases cited; Wood v. State, 144 Ga.App. 236, 240 S.E. 743 (1977) and cases cited; Underwood v. State, 144 Ga.App. 684, 242 S.E.2d 339 supra and cases cited.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dasher v. State
...in Dasher's requests to charge and it was not error for the court to fail to adopt the exact language requested. Hostetler v. State, 145 Ga.App. 55(2), 243 S.E.2d 256 (1978) and Judgment affirmed. QUILLIAN, P. J., and McMURRAY, J., concur. ...
-
Speight v. State, 56486
...appellant when the charge given embodied the correct principles of law. Pollard v. State, 236 Ga. 587, 224 S.E.2d 420; Hostetler v. State, 145 Ga.App. 55, 243 S.E.2d 256. Judgment BELL, C. J., and SHULMAN, J., concur. ...