MILLER v. CALIFORNIA
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Justia & Oyez |
| Citation | 418 U.S. 915 |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1974 |
418 U.S. 915
Marvin MILLER
v.
State of CALIFORNIA.
No. 73-1508.
Supreme Court of the United States
July 25, 1974
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, being of the view that any state ban on obscenity is prohibited by the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth (see Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 70-73 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting)), would note jurisdiction and reverse the judgment of conviction.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice MARSHALL join, dissenting.
Appellant was convicted in the Orange County, California Superior Court of distributing obscene matter in violation of California Penal Code 311.2 which provides in pertinent part as follows:
- 'Every person who knowingly sends or . . . possesses . . . with intent to distribute or to exhibit to others, . . . any obscene matter is guilty of a misdemeanor.'
- 'Obscene matter' is defined in 311(a), which provides in pertinent part as follows:
- "Obscene matter' means matter, taken as a whole, the predominant appeal of which to the average person, applying contemporary standards, is to prurient interest, i. e., shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion; and is matter which taken as a whole goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters; and is matter which taken as a whole is utterly without redeeming social importance.'
The Appellate Department of the Superior Court affirmed, and this Court vacated the judgment of that court and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), and companion cases. The Appellate Department again affirmed.
It is my view that 'at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendment prohibit the State and Federal Governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly 'obscene' contents.' Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 113 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting). Since it is clear that, when tested by that constitution standard, the term 'obscene matter' in 311.2, as defined in 311(a) is unconstitutionally overbroad and therefore facially invalid, I disagree with the holding that the appeal does not present a substantial federal question, and therefore dissent from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miranda v. Hicks, Civ. No. 73-2775-F.
...may be constitutionally proscribed. This court is also faced with the recent dismissal by the Supreme Court of Miller v. California, 418 U.S. 915, 94 S. Ct. 3206, 41 L.Ed.2d 1158 (1974) (Miller II), "for want of a substantial federal question." When Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.C......
-
Bloom v. Municipal Court
...311.2, subdivision (a). The United States Supreme Court dismissed Miller's second appeal 'for want of a substantial federal question.' (418 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 3206, 41 L.Ed.2d 1158 (Miller II).) Certiorari was denied in Enskat, 418 U.S. 937, 94 S.Ct. 3225, 41 L.Ed.2d [16 Cal.3d 80] Concludi......
-
League of Women Voters of Nassau County v. Nassau County Bd. of Sup'rs, No. 326
...the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal from that State case for lack of a substantial federal question. Miller v. California, 418 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 3206, 41 L.Ed.2d 1158 (1974) ("Miller II In reversing the three-judge court, the Supreme Court outlined the rationale underlying such a di......
-
45 223 Hicks v. Miranda 8212 156, No. 74
...inter alia, on this Court's intervening dismissal 'for want of a substantial federal question' of the appeal in Miller v. California, 418 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 3206, 41 L.Ed.2d 1158 (Miller II), from the California Superior Court's judgment sustaining the constitutionality of the California ob......
-
Miranda v. Hicks, Civ. No. 73-2775-F.
...may be constitutionally proscribed. This court is also faced with the recent dismissal by the Supreme Court of Miller v. California, 418 U.S. 915, 94 S. Ct. 3206, 41 L.Ed.2d 1158 (1974) (Miller II), "for want of a substantial federal question." When Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.C......
-
Bloom v. Municipal Court
...311.2, subdivision (a). The United States Supreme Court dismissed Miller's second appeal 'for want of a substantial federal question.' (418 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 3206, 41 L.Ed.2d 1158 (Miller II).) Certiorari was denied in Enskat, 418 U.S. 937, 94 S.Ct. 3225, 41 L.Ed.2d [16 Cal.3d 80] Concludi......
-
Plante v. Gonzalez, No. 77-3109
...the lower courts should follow in determining the effect to be given summary dismissals. "Of course, Miller II (Miller v. California, 418 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 3206, 41 L.Ed.2d 1158) would have been decisive here only if the issues in Miller II and the present case were sufficiently the same t......
-
45 223 Hicks v. Miranda 8212 156, No. 74
...inter alia, on this Court's intervening dismissal 'for want of a substantial federal question' of the appeal in Miller v. California, 418 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 3206, 41 L.Ed.2d 1158 (Miller II), from the California Superior Court's judgment sustaining the constitutionality of the California ob......