State v. Locks
| Citation | 94 Ariz. 134,382 P.2d 241 |
| Decision Date | 29 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 1218,1218 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Charles LOCKS, Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., and Stirley Newell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Herbert L. Ely, Phoenix, for appellant.
By direct information in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, appellant, Charles Locks, was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, Count I and exhibiting and keeping for sale obscene and indecent pictures and writings, Count II, both misdemeanors. The court below dismissed Count II on defendant's motion in the belief that the Statutes, A.R.S. § 13-532 lacked constitutional validity in that it did not specifically require scienter. We reversed holding that scienter was implicit. State v. Locks, 91 Ariz. 394, 372 P.2d 724. Meanwhile, trial was had on Count I and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. This appeal is from the judgment and sentence thereon.
Defendant is the proprietor of 'Charlie's Hobby Shop' in Phoenix, Arizona. In his business he sold and kept for sale certain maganizes referred to in the evidence as 'Girlie' magazines. These magazines principally contain pictures of the female in various states of disarray, some more so than others. In some there are interspersed printed articles, factual and fictional, dealing with sex in heavily disguised language. Of the eight publications in question, three of eight have printed on the covers 'Adults Only' or 'Adult Reading'.
On the 25th day of February, 1961, Roger Allen Sul, age seventeen, being then in the defendant's hobby shop was asked by defendant if he would like to look at some 'Girlie' magazines. Sul on that occasion bought several of the magazines. On the 25th day of March, 1961, he purchased other magazines of a like content.
By Statute, A.R.S. § 13-822, subd. A insofar as it is applicable here, 'A person who by any act, causes, encourages or contributes to the * * * delinquency of a child * * * or who for any cause is responsible therefor is guilty of a misdemeanor * * *.' 'Delinquency' is defined by A.R.S. § 13-821, subd. C as 'Any act which tends to debase or injure the morals, health or welfare of a child.' Since one of the principal purposes of the statute is to prevent the delinquency of children, acts or omissions which tend to cause or contribute to a minor's delinquency are made crimes and punishable as such. Under the statute it was and is unnecessary for the prosecution to establish that defendant's acts actually debased or injured the morals of the child, Loveland v. State, 53 Ariz. 131, 86 P.2d 942; cf. People v. Miller, 145 Cal.App.2d 473, 302 P.2d 603; People v. Calkins, 48 Cal.App.2d 33, 119 P.2d 142, but only that they may tend to do so. Moreover, the statute is comprehensive enough to include acts leading to unacceptable social patterns in later adult life.
The information charged that the defendant on or about the 25th day of March, 1961:
It is to be noticed the information specifies the act of selling obscene or indecent writings, papers, books and pictures as tending to debase and injure the morals, health and welfare of the child. The prosecution categorically classifies the publications as obscene but whether they are so in fact is a matter unrelated to the inquiry here. It can not be doubted but that the jury could find that the sale of publications or material which would tend to corrupt a child's mind would contribute in some measure to debase and injure his morals. It could have believed that to the immature the suggestion that meretricious sexual relations are acceptable social conduct may be more injurious to the welfare of the child than an act of physical ravishment. 1 Hence, we do not find it necessary to reach the question whether these publications are obscene so as to be without the protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. E. g. Manual Enterprises v. Day, 370 U.S. 478, 82 S.Ct. 1432, 8 L.Ed.2d 639; Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498.
Defendant has assigned as error that there was no showing he encouraged or contributed to the delinquency of a minor. The short answer is the testimony established that the original purchases on February 25th, 1951 were induced by the defendant directing the minor's attention to the magazines. If this were not enough, we would still be of the view that one whose choice of business is that of defendant's has the responsibility of seeing that this type of publication does not reach the hands of the emotionally immature. If knowledge of content were necessary, the covers alone in the instant case would be sufficient to alert the vendor thereof.
Defendant assigns as error the admission of the testimony of the minor, Kenneth Farr, age fourteen, that he was sold similar types of publications. The evidence was admissible to show the absence of mistake or accident. State v. Little, 87 Ariz. 295, 350 P.2d 756, 86 A.L.R.2d 1120; Dorsey v. State, 25 Ariz. 139, 213 P. 1011.
We now pass to the point defendant raises which we think is clearly error. By Statute, A.R.S. § 13-827 the legislature directed how §§ 13-821 through 13-825 should be construed.
§ 13-827, subd. A reads:
'Construction and effect of article
The court below over the defendant's objection read the statute to the jury as part of its charge. We are compelled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dillon v. State
...laws,' and thus 'it would be particularly astute (for the jury) to convict.' He relies as well upon the holdings in State v. Locks, 94 Ariz. 134, 382 P.2d 241 (1963). In Waletich, the defendant was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor in violation of § 10303 of the South Dakota Cod......
-
State v. Hunt
...is necessary; the act of the defendant need only 'tend' to 'debase or injure the morals, health or welfare of a child.' State v. Locks, 94 Ariz. 134, 382 P.2d 241 (1963); A.R.S. § Construction of A.R.S. §§ 13--821 and 13--822 is governed by A.R.S. § 13--827 which provides, in part: 'A. This......
-
State v. Speers, 2 CA–CR 2015–0315–PR.
...of any person which may be calculated to cause, encourage or contribute to the ... delinquency of children”); State v. Locks,94 Ariz. 134, 136, 382 P.2d 241, 242 (1963)(defendant store owner sold minor “ ‘Girlie’ magazines”); Loveland v. State,53 Ariz. 131, 132–33, 86 P.2d 942, 942–43 (1939......
-
Lueck v. Superior Court In and For Cochise County
...to another's profit. But, the lodestar of statutory construction is to determine the real intent of the legislature. State v. Locks, 94 Ariz. 134, 382 P.2d 241 (1963). Good sense, and our own legislative history, tell us that this is an instance of misplaced verbiage. In so concluding, we a......
-
Coming to terms with strict and liberal construction.
...determining legislative intent and it is utilized with the various other rules of construction in discerning such intent." State v. Locks, 382 P.2d 241, 243 (Ariz. 1963). From "[t]he general rule is that criminal or penal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant, but th......