Mervin Mounce v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Mervin Mounce v. United States

247 F.2d 148

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 11, 1957

Docket15083

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 247 F.2d 148 (Mervin Mounce v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mervin Mounce v. United States, 247 F.2d 148 (9th Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We are in agreement with Judge Driver’s opinion that the standard to be applied in determining whether or not publications are obscene within the meaning of § 1305(a) of Title 19 U.S. C.A. “is the judgment of the average, normal, reasonable, prudent person of the community in which the publication is circulated. If, at the time of such circulation, considered as a whole it offends the sense of propriety, morality, and decency of such average person, it is within the bar of the statute. Otherwise it is not. Guided by these general principles * * * the trier of facts must draw the line as best he can between art and pornography — between what is permissible and what is objectionable and obscene.”

We find no error in the trial court’s findings of fact, based upon its application of this standard to the facts established by the record in this case. We adopt Judge Driver’s opinion as the opinion of the court. United States v. 4200 Copies International Journal, D.C., 134 F.Supp. 490, 493.

The constitutional questions which appellant has raised in this court and which were not discussed in the opinion of the district court have been foreclosed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Roth v. United States, 77 S.Ct. 1304.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We are in agreement with Judge Driver’s opinion that the standard to be applied in determining whether or not publications are obscene within the meaning of § 1305(a) of Title 19 U.S. C.A. “is the judgment of the average, normal, reasonable, prudent person of the community in which the publication is circulated. If, at the time of such circulation, considered as a whole it offends the sense of propriety, morality, and decency of such average person, it is within the bar of the statute. Otherwise it is not. Guided by these general principles * * * the trier of facts must draw the line as best he can between art and pornography — between what is permissible and what is objectionable and obscene.”

We find no error in the trial court’s findings of fact, based upon its application of this standard to the facts established by the record in this case. We adopt Judge Driver’s opinion as the opinion of the court. United States v. 4200 Copies International Journal, D.C., 134 F.Supp. 490, 493.

The constitutional questions which appellant has raised in this court and which were not discussed in the opinion of the district court have been foreclosed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Roth v. United States, 77 S.Ct. 1304.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 F.2d 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mervin-mounce-v-united-states-ca9-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack