Benjamin v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Benjamin v. United States

74 A.2d 64, 1950 D.C. App. LEXIS 152

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 1950

Docket927

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.2d 64 (Benjamin v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benjamin v. United States, 74 A.2d 64, 1950 D.C. App. LEXIS 152 (D.C. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOD, Associate Judge.

Appellant, owner of a newsstand, was convicted on a charge of knowingly having in his possession with intent to exhibit and sell, and of selling, obscene, lewd and indecent pictures. Code 1940, 22 — 2001. The chief question at trial and here is whether the pictures (photographs), concededly taken from appellant’s place of business and there offered for sale, are obscene, lewd and indecent within the meaning of the statute.

Appellant’s counsel has presented an interesting and able argument to the effect that obscenity has no" fixed meaning and that its meaning varies in different communities and at different periods; that the *65 modern test of obscenity is whether the subject of inquiry “goes beyond the extremes of community tolerance, as those limits are delineated by the mores of the community” ; and that the pictures in question do not exceed the extremes of community tolerance existing today in the City of Washington.

Without attempting to describe the pictures, we are of opinion that they are of such a nature as to sustain a finding of guilt by any recognized standard, including the one advanced by appellant.

Appellant also argues that the statute, as construed and interpreted by the trial court, contravenes the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. We find no merit in this contention.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HOOD, Associate Judge.

Appellant, owner of a newsstand, was convicted on a charge of knowingly having in his possession with intent to exhibit and sell, and of selling, obscene, lewd and indecent pictures. Code 1940, 22 — 2001. The chief question at trial and here is whether the pictures (photographs), concededly taken from appellant’s place of business and there offered for sale, are obscene, lewd and indecent within the meaning of the statute.

Appellant’s counsel has presented an interesting and able argument to the effect that obscenity has no" fixed meaning and that its meaning varies in different communities and at different periods; that the *65 modern test of obscenity is whether the subject of inquiry “goes beyond the extremes of community tolerance, as those limits are delineated by the mores of the community” ; and that the pictures in question do not exceed the extremes of community tolerance existing today in the City of Washington.

Without attempting to describe the pictures, we are of opinion that they are of such a nature as to sustain a finding of guilt by any recognized standard, including the one advanced by appellant.

Appellant also argues that the statute, as construed and interpreted by the trial court, contravenes the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. We find no merit in this contention.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.2d 64, 1950 D.C. App. LEXIS 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benjamin-v-united-states-dc-1950.