Sewell v. State, 31875
| Decision Date | 23 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 31875,31875 |
| Parties | William M. SEWELL v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Gilbert H. Deitch, Michael Clutter, Atlanta, for appellant.
Hinson McAuliffe, Sol., Leonard W. Rhodes, Asst. Sol., Ken C. Pollock, Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellant is the operator of an adult book store located in Fulton County. He was arrested after selling a magazine called Hot and Sultry and an artificial vagina to a law enforcement officer. At the time of his arrest several other artificial sexual devices on display were seized. He was tried and convicted of violating Code Ann. § 26-2101(c), which provides: "Additionally, any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs is obscene material under this section."
1. The first enumeration of error contends the above-quoted statute is unconstitutional for vagueness and overbreadth. Georgia's obscenity statute has previously withstood the same attacks made here. The 1975 amendment to this section, Ga.L.1975, p. 498, simply defined in more definite terms what had been previously referred to as "material", and made no substantive change so as to require a new determination as to the constitutional issues sought to be raised. Dyke v. State, 232 Ga. 817(I), 209 S.E.2d 166 (1974) and citations. There is no merit in this enumeration of error.
2. The second enumeration of error contends it was error to overrule the motion to suppress because the evidence was seized without a warrant. The arresting officer testified that all the "material" confiscated was displayed in a glass case in plain view for everyone who walked in to see. The seizure here comes within the plain view doctrine as held in State v. Swift, 232 Ga. 535(2), 207 S.E.2d 459 (1974), quoting from Brisendine v. State, 130 Ga.App. 249(1), 203 S.E.2d 308 (1973). The trial court did not err in overruling the motion to suppress.
3. The third and fourth enumerations of error contend the evidence did not support the verdict. We have reviewed the transcript and viewed the exhibits transmitted to this court and find no merit in these enumerations of error.
4. The fifth enumeration of error complains of the charge on constructive knowledge as a violation of constitutional requirements of scienter as set forth in Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1973). In Hamling, supra at p. 123, 94 S.Ct. at p. 2910, the court held: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yorko v. State
...care to deny that his challenge rests on the ground of vagueness or overbreadth. He does not dispute the holding of Sewell v. State, 238 Ga. 495, 233 S.E.2d 187 (1977), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, sub.nom. Sewell v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 982, 98 S.Ct. 1635, 56 L......
-
Williams v Pryor
...added). The only issues necessarily decided in Sewell, however, were First Amendment obscenity arguments. See Sewell v. State, 238 Ga. 495, 233 S.E.2d 187, 188-89 (1977). Similarly, Vance decided only a First Amendment obscenity challenge. See 648 F.2d at 1027-28. ...
-
Williams v. Pryor
...(emphasis added). The only issues necessarily decided in Sewell, however, were First Amendment obscenity arguments. See Sewell v. State, 233 S.E.2d 187, 188-89 (Ga. 1977). Similarly, Vance decided only a First Amendment obscenity challenge. See 648 F.2d at ...
-
Abilene Retail # 30, Inc. v. Board of Com'Rs
...1281 (10th Cir.1983); Bigg Wolf Disc. Video Movie Sales, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 256 F.Supp.2d 385 (D.Md.2003); Sewell v. Georgia, 238 Ga. 495, 233 S.E.2d 187 (1977). In addition, the preamble cites to studies commissioned by the following municipalities: Austin, Tex. (1986); Indianapoli......
-
Kim Shayo Buchanan, Lawrence v. Geduldig: Regulating Women's Sexuality
...Hughes, 792 P.2d 1023 (Kan. 1990) (privacy); Brenan, 772 So.2d 64 (irrational exercise of police power). 102 See, e.g., Sewell v. State, 233 S.E.2d 187 (Ga. 1977) (vagueness and overbreadth); Pierce v. State, 239 S.E.2d 28 (Ga. 1977) (vagueness, overbreadth, and privacy); Regalado v. State,......
-
Can't buy a thrill: substantive due process, equal protection, and criminalizing sex toys.
...sexuality"). (271) Cf Lindemann, supra note 49, at 337 (quoting Dr. Sandor Gardos's paraphrasing of his testimony in Sewell v. State, 233 S.E.2d 187 (Ga. 1977), as: "DA: Now Professor Doctor Gardos, you stated that these devices have therapeutic value. Is that Correct? Gardos: Yes. DA: And ......
-
Pathology full circle: a history of anti-vibrator legislation in the United States.
...Thirty-Five East Colfax, Inc., 697 P.2d 348, 356, 368 (Colo. 1985). (53) Id. at 373. (54) Id. at 372. (55) See, e.g., Sewell v. State, 233 S.E.2d 187 (Ga. 1977). (56) Id. at 188. (57) Id. (citing CODE 1933 [section] 26-2101 (current version at GA. CODE ANN. [section] 16-12-80 (2005))). (58)......