Dobbs v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dobbs v. State

243 S.E.2d 275, 145 Ga. App. 14, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1841

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 9, 1978

Docket55167

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 243 S.E.2d 275 (Dobbs v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dobbs v. State, 243 S.E.2d 275, 145 Ga. App. 14, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1841 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Shulman, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of distributing obscene materials in violation of Code Ann. § 26-2101. This appeal follows.

1. Appellant challenges the constitutionality of Code Ann. § 26-2101 (c). As this case was first sent to the Supreme Court and subsequently transferred to this court, we are authorized to conclude that the constitutional questions raised have been decided. Robinson v. State, 143 Ga. App. 37 (1) (237 SE2d 436). *15 The constitutionality of this statute has been finally and conclusively determined by our Supreme Court. Sewell v. State, 238 Ga. 495 (233 SE2d 187).

Submitted January 18, 1978 Decided February 9, 1978 Rehearing denied February 22, 1978 — Cert, applied for. Michael Clutter, Robert Eugene Smith, for appellant. Hinson McAuliffe, Solicitor General, Leonard W. Rhodes, Richard E. Stark, Assistant Solicitors, for appellee.

2. Remaining enumerations are controlled adversely to appellant by Sewell v. State, supra. See Teal v. State, 143 Ga. App. 47 (238 SE2d 128).

3. As all other enumerations were controlled adversely to appellant by prior decision of our Supreme Court, the only issue presented for this court’s consideration involves the application of constitutional standards to the facts of this case. See, e.g., Fishman v. State, 229 Ga. 133 (189 SE2d 429).

In accordance with Dyke v. State, 232 Ga. 817, 821 (209 SE2d 166), we have made an independent appellate review of the material to decide the constitutional fact of obscenity. While this writer has the utmost respect for freedom of expression, the writer also recognizes that this freedom is not absolute. Oftentimes the line between protected speech and unprotected speech is a difficult one to draw. We had no such difficulty here. The materials and magazines are within the definition of Code Ann. § 26-2101.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

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

Shulman, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of distributing obscene materials in violation of Code Ann. § 26-2101. This appeal follows.

1. Appellant challenges the constitutionality of Code Ann. § 26-2101 (c). As this case was first sent to the Supreme Court and subsequently transferred to this court, we are authorized to conclude that the constitutional questions raised have been decided. Robinson v. State, 143 Ga. App. 37 (1) (237 SE2d 436). *15 The constitutionality of this statute has been finally and conclusively determined by our Supreme Court. Sewell v. State, 238 Ga. 495 (233 SE2d 187).

Submitted January 18, 1978 Decided February 9, 1978 Rehearing denied February 22, 1978 — Cert, applied for. Michael Clutter, Robert Eugene Smith, for appellant. Hinson McAuliffe, Solicitor General, Leonard W. Rhodes, Richard E. Stark, Assistant Solicitors, for appellee.

2. Remaining enumerations are controlled adversely to appellant by Sewell v. State, supra. See Teal v. State, 143 Ga. App. 47 (238 SE2d 128).

3. As all other enumerations were controlled adversely to appellant by prior decision of our Supreme Court, the only issue presented for this court’s consideration involves the application of constitutional standards to the facts of this case. See, e.g., Fishman v. State, 229 Ga. 133 (189 SE2d 429).

In accordance with Dyke v. State, 232 Ga. 817, 821 (209 SE2d 166), we have made an independent appellate review of the material to decide the constitutional fact of obscenity. While this writer has the utmost respect for freedom of expression, the writer also recognizes that this freedom is not absolute. Oftentimes the line between protected speech and unprotected speech is a difficult one to draw. We had no such difficulty here. The materials and magazines are within the definition of Code Ann. § 26-2101.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 S.E.2d 275, 145 Ga. App. 14, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dobbs-v-state-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack