State v. Weitershausen, A--78

• Decision Date: 02 February 1951
• Docket Number: No. A--78,A--78
• Citation: 78 A.2d 595,11 N.J.Super. 487
• Parties: STATE v. WEITERSHAUSEN.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 487

11 N.J.Super. 487

78 A.2d 595

STATE v. WEITERSHAUSEN.

No. A--78.

Superior Court of New Jersey

Appellate Division.

Argued Jan. 15, 1951.

Decided Feb. 2, 1951.

Anthony A. Calandra, Newark, for appellant.

Maurice J. McKeown, Newark, for respondent (Richard J. Congleton, Essex County Pros. Atty., C. William Caruso, Legal Asst. Pros., Newark, on the brief).

Before Judges JACOBS, EASTWOOD and BIGELOW.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

JACOBS, S.J.A.D.

The defendant appeals from his conviction for the possession and sale of obscene pictures.

The defendant conducts a book store at 279 Market Street, Newark. On October 15, 1949 a young man named Rossi was in the store selecting pictures from a black double index book which contained numerous photographs of women, mostly nude. At that time officers of the Newark Police Department entered and searched the premises, confiscated twenty or thirty thousand pictures and arrested the defendant. On January 26, 1950 McGovern went to the store, asked the defendant for the 'nude photographs that he had' and purchased several sets. These were taken by officers of the Newark Police Department who again searched the premises and confiscated 'thousands of photographs and a few magazines.'

Thereafter the defendant was indicted and brought to trial for having possessed and sold obscene pictures contrary to R.S. 2:140--2, N.J.S.A. The prosecutor in his opening outlined the pertinent circumstances, advanced the State's contention that the pictures which were to be introduced in evidence were obscene, and asserted that a verdict of guilty would be expected if the jury so found. The defendant sought but was denied amplification of the opening. The State then introduced testimony by the police officers and Rossi and McGovern and placed into evidence, without objection, all of the confiscated pictures. The defendant did not testify and no other oral testimony on his behalf was presented; the lower court rejected his offer in evidence of the September 11, 1950 issue of Life magazine which contained reproductions of famous paintings including, among others, Rembrandt's The Painter's Study, and Goya's The Maja Nude. The defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal was denied.

In its charge the trial court submitted to the jury for its factual determination the issue of whether, in the light of all of the evidence in the cause, the pictures which were possessed and sold by the defendant were obscene and indecent. In defining these terms the court pointed out they were words of common usage, 'suggestive of lustfulness, lasciviousness, and sensuality.' It further pointed out that the test for obscenity was 'whether the pictures would tend to deprave the morals of those into whose hands they might fall by suggesting lewd thoughts and exciting sensual desires.' It cautioned the jury that pictures or paintings of nude women are not of themselves obscene or indecent and that the ultimate determination 'may well depend on the character of the pictures, the pose portrayed, the expression shown, the number and sequence of a group of such pictures, or the sensually suggestive character of the pictures.' Finally, it expressed the view that a proper test of the obscenity of the pictures would be 'whether their motive as portrayed by them is morally pure or impure, whether they are naturally calculated to excite in a spectator morally impure imaginations and whether the other incidents and qualities however attractive are merely secondary to this as their primary or main representation.' The defendant did not object to any portion of the charge as rendered but did object to the court's refusal to grant several of his requests to charge. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and the defendant was duly sentenced.

Much has been written as to when and by whom matter may properly be found obscene and indecent with appropriate consequences prescribed by law. See Roth v. Goldman, 172 F.2d 788, 790 (2d Cir.1949) certiorari denied 337 U.S. 938, 69 S.Ct. 1514, 93 L.Ed. 1743 (1949); State v. Lerner, 81 N.E.2d 282 (Ohio C.P. 1948); Lerner, 'Judicial Censorship of Obscene Literature,' 52 Harv.L.Rev. 40 (1938). Many of the recent cases have dealt with apparently sincere though outspoken novels (Commonwealth v. Isenstadt, 318 Mass. 543, 62 N.E.2d 840 (1945)), while others have dealt with purportedly serious presentations of nudism in art and as a cult. Parmelee v. United States, 72 App.D.C. 203, 113 F.2d 729 (D.C.Cir.1940); State v. Lerner, supra. The important issues concerning proper freedom of expression which were presented in the cited cases do not appear to trouble us here; the evidence in the instant matter clearly indicates that the pictures which consisted of actual photographs of women in progressive stages of undress, in suggestive postures and in the nude, were not being distributed for any socially defensible purpose.

Although the words obscene and indecent are commonly used and understood they are probably not susceptible of precise legal definition. Cf. Commonwealth v. New, 142 Pa.Super. 358, 16 A.2d 437 (1940); United States v. Levine, 83 F.2d 156 (2d Cir. 1936). In the Isenstadt case, supra, Justice Qua...