People v. Alberts
| Citation | 138 Cal.App.2d Supp. 909,292 P.2d 90 |
| Decision Date | 29 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | Cr. A |
| Court | United States Superior Court (California) |
| Parties | 138 Cal.App.2d Supp. 909 PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. David S. ALBERTS, Defendant and Appellant. 3350. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California |
C. Richard Maddox, Beverly Hills, Stanley Fleishman, Hollywood, for appellants.
S. Ernest Roll, Dist. Atty., Jere J. Sullivan, Deputy Dist. Atty., Los Angeles, for respondent.
A. L. Wirin, Los Angeles, amicus curiae.
The defendant was convicted on two charges based on section 311 of the Penal Code: that he had lewdly kept for sale obscene and indecent books; and that he had lewdly written, composed, and published an advertisement of them. A new trial was denied, and a sentence (its terms not divulged) was imposed. The appeal is from the order and judgment.
Section 311, Penal Code, declares a large number of acts, if lewdly done, to be a misdemeanor. Subdivision 3 of the section alone lists some nineteen of these acts, and in the first count of the complaint it was charged that the defendant had done all of them. Whatever may be said about the possibility that one who swears to such a complaint is guilty of perjury (for there was not the slightest proof that the defendant had committed most of the acts charged), and that a decent regard to fair play would dictate that some attempt be made to have the charge fit the known facts, it is not legal error to charge them all in one count. See People v. McClennegen, 1925, 195 Cal. 445, 452, 234 P. 91; Bealmear v. Southern Calif. Edison Co., 1943, 22 Cal.2d 337, 340-343, 139 P.2d 20, 22-23; People v. Rosenbloom, 1931, 119 Cal.App.Supp. 759, 762, 2 P.2d 228, 230; and People v. Allington, 1951, 103 Cal.App.2d Supp. 911, 914-919, 229 P.2d 495, 497-500.
Two other facts support our conclusion that a reversal should not be had because of the shot-gun character of pleading. The first is, that even if it were error to charge the many acts with reference to many things, with no expectation of proving but a few of them, no attack was made upon the complaint by demurrer, as may now be done. Section 1004, Penal Code. Moreover, while the type of pleading being considered lends itself to an unfair prosecution, actually, in this case, the defendant was not prejudiced; he would have been no better off had the charge been simply that he kept obscene books for sale.
The words 'obscene or indecent' as used in subdivision 3 of section 311, are not unconstitutionally indefinite. As early as 1896 the United States Supreme Court knew their meaning. Swearingen v. U. S., 1896, 161 U.S. 446, 451, 16 S.Ct. 562, 40 L.Ed. 765, 766, and a large number of cases since then have been decided on the theory that their meaning was not obscure. See Annotation, 76 A.L.R. 1099, and People v. Wepplo, 1947, 78 Cal.App.2d Supp. 959, 961, 178 P.2d 853, 855. To be sure, it is not always easy to decide on which side of the line a book should be placed, but if a difficulty of that sort sufficed to condemn a statute, then we could not declare it to be a crime to drive while under the influence of liquor, or to induce a person to part with his property by a false pretense, or to kill with malice aforethought.
The circumstance that the defendant made use of the United States mails to advertise and to distribute his obscene wares--and that some of his books were obscene we do not consider debatable--does not render the state statute, section 311, inoperative. See In re Phoedovius, 1918, 177 Cal. 238, 246, 170 P. 412; Zinn v. State, 1908, 88 Ark. 273, 114 S.W. 227, 228; Ex parte Williams, 1940, 345 Mo. 1121, 139 S.W.2d 485, 491, which cites In re Phoedovius, supra, certiorari denied in U. S. Supreme Court, Williams v. Golden, 311 U.S. 675, 61 S.Ct. 42, 85 L.Ed. 434; Railway Mail Ass'n v. Corsi, 1945, 326 U.S. 88, 95, 65 S.Ct. 1483, 89 L.Ed. 2072, 2077.
We see no good purpose to be served by a discussion of either the evidence, which we find sufficient to support the judgment, or of the other contentions advanced.
The order and judgment appealed from are affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing
Before BISHOP, P. J., and PATROSSO and SWAIN, JJ.
The petition of appellant for a rehearing after judgment of this court on appeal, in the above entitled matter, having been filed, and having been duly considered,
Said petition is hereby denied.
Memorandum.In his petition for a rehearing, the defendant reveals that he shares a misunderstanding of the duty resting upon this Department, with respect to the writing of opinions, that is so widely held that it calls for a comment. Referring to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roth v. United States Alberts v. State of California
...was granted by Mr. Justice Harlan in his capacity as Circuit Justice for the Second Circuit. 77 S.Ct. 17, 1 L.Ed.2d 34. 6. 138 Cal.App.2d Supp. 909, 292 P.2d 90. This is the highest state appellate court available to the appellant. Cal. Const., Art. VI, § 5; see Edwards v. People of State o......
-
State v. Jackson
...City of Bessemer, 1937, 234 Ala. 20, 173 So. 626; People v. Smith, 1958, 161 Cal.App.2d Supp. 860, 327 P.2d 636; People v. Alberts, 1957, 138 Cal.App.2d Supp. 909, 292 P.2d 90; State v. McKee, 1900, 73 Conn. 18, 46 A. 409, 49 L.R.A. 542; In re Banks, 1895, 56 Kan. 242, 42 P. 693; Commonweal......
-
People v. Kelly
...a writ petition did not affect rule that denial of such relief need not be accompanied by a written opinion]; People v. Alberts (1956) 138 Cal. App.2d Supp. 909, 912, 292 P.2d 90 [written opinion requirement does not apply to appellate department of superior court]; People v. Corlett (1945)......
-
People v. Johnson
...v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 474, 11 Cal.Rptr. 361, 359 P.2d 913; People v. Chadwick, 4 Cal.App. 63, 71, 87 P. 384, 389; People v. Alberts, 138 Cal.App.2d Supp. 909, 292 P.2d 90). Appellant argues, however, that the court erred in instructing only on the receiving element, and not upon concealin......