P. B. I. C., Inc. v. District Atty. of Suffolk County
| Decision Date | 09 April 1970 |
| Citation | 357 Mass. 770,258 N.E.2d 82 |
| Parties | P.B.I.C., INC. et al. v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Gerald A. Berlin, Harold Katz, Henry P. Monaghan, Boston, and Alan M. Derschowitz, Cambridge, for P.B.I.C., Inc.
Gael Mahony and Richard C. Minzner, Boston, for the Trustees of the Jujamcyn Theatres and another.
Garrett H. Byrne, Dist. Atty., Joseph R. Nolan, Asst. Dist. Atty., Alvin Brody and John M. Lynch, III, Boston, for respondent.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, REARDON and QUIRICO, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
In this case, reserved and reported without decision by a single justice, injunctive relief is sought against prosecution of the producers and members of the cast of a performance called 'Hair,' for violation of G.L. c. 272 §§ 16 and 32. Declaration is sought that prosecution would contravene various constitutional provisions. Each justice participating has seen the performance at the request of the parties. One scene shows members of the cast in the nude facing the audience. One nude male performer is bathed on stage. There is incidental stage action which a jury could conclude was clowning intended to simulate sexual intercourse or deviation. This appears to be less realistic than the conduct discussed in People v. Bercowitz, 308 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Cr.Ct.N.Y.). The play in various respects will be offensive to some persons. It constitutes, however, in some degree, an obscure form of protest protected under the First Amendment. Viewed apart from the specific incidents mentioned above, it is not lewd and lascivious, whatever other objections there may be to it. The incidents, already mentioned are separable from, and wholly unnecessary to, whatever theme this noisy, disorganized performance may have. Discretionary equitable jurisdiction, infrequently exercised, exists to restrain enforcement of an unconstitutional criminal statute or unconstitutional application of a valid statute. See Slome v. Chief of Police of Fitchburg, 304 Mass. 187, 188, 23 N.E.2d 133; Kenyon v. Chicopee, 320 Mass. 528, 531, 535, 70 N.E.2d 241. Reasonable doubts are asserted whether the statutes cited have application to dramatic performances (cf. Re Giannini, 69 Cal.2d 563, 570--577, 72 Cal.Rptr. 655, 446 P.2d 535), and whether, if so applied, these statutes may be unconstitutionally vague. See Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 293, 231 N.E.2d 201. Injunctive relief...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
District Attorney for Suffolk Dist. v. Watson
...a pending criminal action in "very special circumstances." Id. at 171, 330 N.E.2d 830. See P. B. I. C., Inc. v. District Attorney of Suffolk County, 357 Mass. 770, 771, 258 N.E.2d 82 (1970); Kenyon v. Chicopee, 320 Mass. 528, 535, 70 N.E.2d 241 (1946). We conclude that the cases at bar are ......
-
City of Revere v. Aucella
...(1930). We sanctioned an injunction against prosecution of entertainers under the same statute in P.B.I.C., Inc. v. District Attorney of Suffolk County, 357 Mass. 770, 258 N.E.2d 82 (1970). Cf. Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., --- U.S. ---, ---, 95 S.Ct. 2561, 2566, 45 L.Ed.2d 648 (1975). Multiple......
-
Commonwealth v. Ora
...that we had sanctioned an injunction against the prosecution of entertainers for that performance, P.B.I.C., Inc. v. District Attorney of Suffolk County, 357 Mass. 770, 258 N.E.2d 82 (1970). Revere v. Aucella, supra at 143, 338 N.E.2d We have also established the elements the prosecution mu......
-
Fadden v. Com.
...ATTORNEY FOR NORFOLK DIST., --- MASS. ---, 373 N.E.2D 960C (1978) (declaratory judgment), and P. B. I. C., Inc. v. District Attorney of Suffolk County, 357 Mass. 770, 258 N.E.2d 82 (1970) (suit for injunction). It is more appropriate, where a plaintiff questions the action of a judge in his......