Commonwealth v. State Amusement Corp.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. State Amusement Corp.

248 N.E.2d 497, 356 Mass. 715, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 877

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 28, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 248 N.E.2d 497 (Commonwealth v. State Amusement Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. State Amusement Corp., 248 N.E.2d 497, 356 Mass. 715, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 877 (Mass. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant was found guilty in the Municipal Court and, on appeal, in the Superior Court on complaints for having in its possession and for presenting an obscene, indecent or impure motion picture film entitled "Fanny Hill Meets Dr. Erótico.” The case is here on the defendant’s exceptions to the denial of its motion to suppress certain evidence and the denial of its requests for certain rulings relating to obscenity. The film is obscene. Its dominant theme as a whole appeals solely to a prurient interest in sex; it is patently offensive, an affront to contemporary community standards regarding sexual matters; and it is utterly without redeeming social value. Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476. A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney Gen. of Mass. 383 U. S. 413. Attorney Gen. v. A Book Named “Naked Lunch,” 351 Mass. 298, 299. Indeed, in our opinion the film has no value. The defendant further contends that the seizure and subsequent introduction in evidence of the film violated his constitutional rights. See A Quantity of Copies of Books v. Kansas, 378 U. S. 205; Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51. We do not agree. Here the judge had before him a detailed and accurate description of a number of scenes in the film. Thus, the report contained far more than an officer’s conclusory assertions. It provided a sufficient factual basis ‘“designed to focus searchingly on the question of obscenity’ ” and consequently conformed to the constitutional requirements. Lee Art Theatre, Inc. v. Virginia, 392 U. S. 636, 637.

Exceptions overruled.

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

The defendant was found guilty in the Municipal Court and, on appeal, in the Superior Court on complaints for having in its possession and for presenting an obscene, indecent or impure motion picture film entitled "Fanny Hill Meets Dr. Erótico.” The case is here on the defendant’s exceptions to the denial of its motion to suppress certain evidence and the denial of its requests for certain rulings relating to obscenity. The film is obscene. Its dominant theme as a whole appeals solely to a prurient interest in sex; it is patently offensive, an affront to contemporary community standards regarding sexual matters; and it is utterly without redeeming social value. Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476. A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney Gen. of Mass. 383 U. S. 413. Attorney Gen. v. A Book Named “Naked Lunch,” 351 Mass. 298, 299. Indeed, in our opinion the film has no value. The defendant further contends that the seizure and subsequent introduction in evidence of the film violated his constitutional rights. See A Quantity of Copies of Books v. Kansas, 378 U. S. 205; Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51. We do not agree. Here the judge had before him a detailed and accurate description of a number of scenes in the film. Thus, the report contained far more than an officer’s conclusory assertions. It provided a sufficient factual basis ‘“designed to focus searchingly on the question of obscenity’ ” and consequently conformed to the constitutional requirements. Lee Art Theatre, Inc. v. Virginia, 392 U. S. 636, 637.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 N.E.2d 497, 356 Mass. 715, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-state-amusement-corp-mass-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack