Mohney v. State

263 Ind. 1
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 21, 1973
DocketNo. 471S94
StatusPublished

This text of 263 Ind. 1 (Mohney v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mohney v. State, 263 Ind. 1 (Ind. 1973).

Opinion

Akterburn, C.J.

This Court affirmed [Mohney v. State, (1971) 276 N.E.2d 517] the conviction in the above case on a charge of “sending obscene literature into state” based upon Ind. Code § 35-30-10-3, Burns § 10-2803a (1956 Repl.), entitled “Obscene literature and devices — Circulation, possession, manufacture.”, and thereafter the appellant-defendant applied for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court and that Court on the 25 day of June, 1973, having granted certiorari, vacated our judgment affirming the conviction and remanded the cause to this court “for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) ; Paris Adult Theatre 1 v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973) ; Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115 (1973) ; U.S. v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Super 8mm Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973) ; U.S. v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139 (1973) ; Heller v. N. Y., 413 U.S. 483 (1973) ; Roaden v. Ky, 413 U.S. 496 (1973) ; and Alexander v. Virginia, 413 U.S. 836 (1973).”

The main thrust of those opinions, so far as applicable to this case, is that the statute under which the appellant was convicted is unconstitutional for the reason that it is too general in nature and does not set out specifically the sexual or obscene acts which, when depicted in any of the media named by the statute, constitute a violation of the statute.

Pursuant to the order and direction of the United States Supreme Court we hold the statute involved in this case as unconstitutional on the grounds announced by that Court.

Therefore, pursuant to the Order of the United States Supreme Court, the judgment and conviction of appellant-defendant is reversed and remanded to the trial court, and [3]*3pursuant to the order of the United States Supreme Court, the trial court is directed to discharge the defendant.

All Justices concur.

Note. — Reported at 300 N.E.2d 66.

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

Related

Miller v. California
413 U.S. 15 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton
413 U.S. 49 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Heller v. New York
413 U.S. 483 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Roaden v. Kentucky
413 U.S. 496 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Alexander v. Virginia
413 U.S. 836 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Mohney v. State
276 N.E.2d 517 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1971)
Mohney v. State
300 N.E.2d 66 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1973)
Kaplan v. California
413 U.S. 115 (Supreme Court, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
263 Ind. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mohney-v-state-ind-1973.