Nelson, Justice.
Criminal proceedings for violation of Minn. St. 617.241 were brought against defendant-appellants, Robert Carlson and S. Peter Getman, by the State of Minnesota in the municipal court of Duluth. A jury found defendants guilty on 29 of 33 counts charging the distribution of obscene materials and the court sentenced each defendant to a maximum fine of $100 on each of the 29 counts on which he was convicted, or $2,900. Defendants obtained writs of prohibition to stay imposition of the fines and appealed to this court from the judgments of conviction.
At about 2:15 p. m. on July 2, 1969, police officers of the city of Duluth entered the Discount Book and Magazine Store, 123 East Superior Street, Duluth, presented a search warrant to defendant Getman, and seized 54 reels of movie film. The Discount Book and Magazine Store is located on the main business street in Duluth and most of its merchandise is sex-oriented literature and pictorial matter. At the time of the seizure, the s*tore was owned and operated by defendant Carlson. Defendant Getman was employed in the store as a sales clerk.
Defendants were each charged with possession of obscene [370] movies with intent to sell in violation of § 617.241, which reads as follows:
“It is unlawful for any person knowingly to exhibit, sell, print, offer to sell, give away, circulate, publish, distribute, or attempt to distribute any obscene book, magazine, pamphlet, paper, writing, card, advertisement, circular, print, picture, photograph, motion picture film, play, image, instrument, statue, drawing, or other article which is obscene. ‘Obscene’ for the purpose of this section is defined as follows: Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interests.
“Any person violating any provision of this section shall be fined not less than $20 nor more than $100 for each offense.”
At the trial, the state called as witnesses two police officers who testified that a search warrant had been executed at the store, pictures had been taken of the layout of the store, and that 54 reels of film had been seized. The officers were also called upon to introduce into evidence photos and a diagram of the store and the 33 reels of film alleged to be obscene. The films were shown to the jury and the state then rested.
The defense stipulated that both defendants had a general knowledge of the contents of the films and that each of them exhibited, offered for sale, or attempted to distribute each of the films that had been seized. Defendant Getman testified that from 35 percent to 40 percent of the store’s material is not sex-oriented; that the store’s material comes by mail, by truck, and through a local distributor; and that several hundred people enter the store daily. The defense also attempted to offer into evidence books and magazines purchased at two other bookstores in Duluth. Objections were sustained to this offer and to all other offered defense exhibits.
On October 9, 1969, the jury found both defendants guilty on 29 counts charging violation of § 617.241 and not guilty on 4 [371] counts. Questions presented by this appeal are: (1) Did the state present sufficient evidence to sustain findings of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the 29 counts? (2) Was it error for the trial court to exclude defendants’ exhibits, which they claim would have provided evidence to the jury of current community standards? (3) Are defendants protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution from prosecution for offering these films for sale? (4) Is Minn. St. 617.241 unconstitutional for failure to incorporate into its definition of “obscene” the element “utterly without redeeming social value” ? (5) Did the trial court err in treating each count in the complaints against defendants as a separate offense and imposing a fine for each count on which they were convicted?
We find no grounds for reversing the lower court on the first four issues but conclude that the trial court erred in imposing a fine on each of the counts on which defendants were found guilty, and order modification of the judgments accordingly.
Defendants argue that the state did not present sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s finding of guilty on any of the 29 counts, contending that no evidence was offered to establish the elements of the offense — that the dominant theme of the materials taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; that the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and that the material is utterly without redeeming social value. They contend it was error to allow the jury to make a decision on the contents of the films without receiving any aid in ascertaining the contemporary community standard or the question of lack of social value. These arguments are not persuasive. We concur with decisions which have expressly or impliedly concluded that a jury, properly instructed, is fully capable of determining whether conduct or material appeals to a prurient interest and offends contemporary community standards, without expert testimony on the subject, and that such testimony is not essential to appellate review. [372] Kahm v. United States, 300 F. 2d 78 (5 Cir. 1962), certiorari denied, 369 U. S. 859, 82 S. Ct. 949, 8 L. ed. 2d 18 (1962).
Defendants having stipulated at the trial that they had a general knowledge of the contents of the films, and that each of them exhibited, offered for sale, or attempted to distribute each of the films that were seized, the only other element of the crime to be proved against them at the trial was that the films were obscene. The trial judge read the statute’s definition of “obscene” to the jury, and further charged them that under that definition they had to determine as questions of fact three elements which had to coalesce or combine: Whether the dominant theme of each film, taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient interest in sex; whether the films were patently offensive because they affronted contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and whether the films were utterly without redeeming social value.
The trial judge elaborated further by explaining that the test in each case was the effect of the film in its entirety, not upon any particular class, but upon all those whom it was likely to reach, and by instructing the jury that the films were to be judged by the standards of the national or state-wide community and not necessarily by the standards of a local community such as Duluth.
We think these instructions were quite sufficient to explain the elements of the offense under decisions of the United States Supreme Court and to enable the jury to determine whether defendants were guilty or innocent of the charges against them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Nelson, Justice.
Criminal proceedings for violation of Minn. St. 617.241 were brought against defendant-appellants, Robert Carlson and S. Peter Getman, by the State of Minnesota in the municipal court of Duluth. A jury found defendants guilty on 29 of 33 counts charging the distribution of obscene materials and the court sentenced each defendant to a maximum fine of $100 on each of the 29 counts on which he was convicted, or $2,900. Defendants obtained writs of prohibition to stay imposition of the fines and appealed to this court from the judgments of conviction.
At about 2:15 p. m. on July 2, 1969, police officers of the city of Duluth entered the Discount Book and Magazine Store, 123 East Superior Street, Duluth, presented a search warrant to defendant Getman, and seized 54 reels of movie film. The Discount Book and Magazine Store is located on the main business street in Duluth and most of its merchandise is sex-oriented literature and pictorial matter. At the time of the seizure, the s*tore was owned and operated by defendant Carlson. Defendant Getman was employed in the store as a sales clerk.
Defendants were each charged with possession of obscene [370] movies with intent to sell in violation of § 617.241, which reads as follows:
“It is unlawful for any person knowingly to exhibit, sell, print, offer to sell, give away, circulate, publish, distribute, or attempt to distribute any obscene book, magazine, pamphlet, paper, writing, card, advertisement, circular, print, picture, photograph, motion picture film, play, image, instrument, statue, drawing, or other article which is obscene. ‘Obscene’ for the purpose of this section is defined as follows: Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interests.
“Any person violating any provision of this section shall be fined not less than $20 nor more than $100 for each offense.”
At the trial, the state called as witnesses two police officers who testified that a search warrant had been executed at the store, pictures had been taken of the layout of the store, and that 54 reels of film had been seized. The officers were also called upon to introduce into evidence photos and a diagram of the store and the 33 reels of film alleged to be obscene. The films were shown to the jury and the state then rested.
The defense stipulated that both defendants had a general knowledge of the contents of the films and that each of them exhibited, offered for sale, or attempted to distribute each of the films that had been seized. Defendant Getman testified that from 35 percent to 40 percent of the store’s material is not sex-oriented; that the store’s material comes by mail, by truck, and through a local distributor; and that several hundred people enter the store daily. The defense also attempted to offer into evidence books and magazines purchased at two other bookstores in Duluth. Objections were sustained to this offer and to all other offered defense exhibits.
On October 9, 1969, the jury found both defendants guilty on 29 counts charging violation of § 617.241 and not guilty on 4 [371] counts. Questions presented by this appeal are: (1) Did the state present sufficient evidence to sustain findings of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the 29 counts? (2) Was it error for the trial court to exclude defendants’ exhibits, which they claim would have provided evidence to the jury of current community standards? (3) Are defendants protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution from prosecution for offering these films for sale? (4) Is Minn. St. 617.241 unconstitutional for failure to incorporate into its definition of “obscene” the element “utterly without redeeming social value” ? (5) Did the trial court err in treating each count in the complaints against defendants as a separate offense and imposing a fine for each count on which they were convicted?
We find no grounds for reversing the lower court on the first four issues but conclude that the trial court erred in imposing a fine on each of the counts on which defendants were found guilty, and order modification of the judgments accordingly.
Defendants argue that the state did not present sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s finding of guilty on any of the 29 counts, contending that no evidence was offered to establish the elements of the offense — that the dominant theme of the materials taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; that the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and that the material is utterly without redeeming social value. They contend it was error to allow the jury to make a decision on the contents of the films without receiving any aid in ascertaining the contemporary community standard or the question of lack of social value. These arguments are not persuasive. We concur with decisions which have expressly or impliedly concluded that a jury, properly instructed, is fully capable of determining whether conduct or material appeals to a prurient interest and offends contemporary community standards, without expert testimony on the subject, and that such testimony is not essential to appellate review. [372] Kahm v. United States, 300 F. 2d 78 (5 Cir. 1962), certiorari denied, 369 U. S. 859, 82 S. Ct. 949, 8 L. ed. 2d 18 (1962).
Defendants having stipulated at the trial that they had a general knowledge of the contents of the films, and that each of them exhibited, offered for sale, or attempted to distribute each of the films that were seized, the only other element of the crime to be proved against them at the trial was that the films were obscene. The trial judge read the statute’s definition of “obscene” to the jury, and further charged them that under that definition they had to determine as questions of fact three elements which had to coalesce or combine: Whether the dominant theme of each film, taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient interest in sex; whether the films were patently offensive because they affronted contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and whether the films were utterly without redeeming social value.
The trial judge elaborated further by explaining that the test in each case was the effect of the film in its entirety, not upon any particular class, but upon all those whom it was likely to reach, and by instructing the jury that the films were to be judged by the standards of the national or state-wide community and not necessarily by the standards of a local community such as Duluth.
We think these instructions were quite sufficient to explain the elements of the offense under decisions of the United States Supreme Court and to enable the jury to determine whether defendants were guilty or innocent of the charges against them.
To defendants’ contention that the jury needed expert assistance in determining the contemporary community standards and the question of whether the films lacked social value, our only reaction is to ask why. These films speak for, and are, themselves evidence of their obscenity. They make no pretense of even attempting to enter the borderline area of works which conceivably have some redeeming social value, and defendants make no claim that they possess it. We also think it may fairly be said [373] that no amount of testimony by psychoanalysts, sociologists, or anthropologists would be any more reliable on the question of whether these films affront contemporary community standards than the opinion of the jurors in this case.
Similarly, we do not see the relevance or materiality of books, magazines, or evidence about a “live” dancing show, which defendants sought to introduce to show the contemporary community standards. Defendants did not establish that their proffered material was reasonably acceptable to the community, or that it was similar to the subject matter of the prosecution. The issue at trial was the obscenity of the films. What probative value these proffered exhibits would have in determining this issue would be minimal, and the resulting effort required by the jury to peruse this mountain of material would have only been confusing and wasteful of time. See, Womack v. United States, 111 App. D. C. 8, 294 F. 2d 204 (1961), certiorari denied, 365 U. S. 859, 81 S. Ct. 826, 5 L. ed. 2d 822 (1961).
As we view it, defendants are not afforded protection by the First and Fourteenth Amendments since there was evidence of pandering in their distribution which set the films in question aside from material deemed protected under Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767, 87 S. Ct. 1414, 18 L. ed. 2d 515 (1967). Photographs of different areas of the interior and exterior of defendant Carlson’s store were introduced into evidence. The store is located on Duluth’s main business thoroughfare, Superior Street, and two of the photos show the display windows which greet passers-by. One window prominently displays about 70 different paperback novels dealing with varying and inviting topics of sex. Another window displays in equal prominence an assortment of “girlie” magazines. Signs in two different display areas of the windows proclaim in bold print, “YOU CANNOT BE ARRESTED while Shopping our Store” and, “ADULTS ONLY, You must be 18 to Enter Store.”
It seems to us that the particular selection of magazines and books placed in the windows, accompanied by the signs warrant[374] ing that the shopper could not be arrested in the store, were designed to represent that the material found in the store was erotically arousing, salacious, and prurient and therefore constituted pandering, denying defendants First Amendment protection. As Mr. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority in Ginsburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463, 474, 86 S. Ct. 942, 949, 16 L. ed. 2d 31, 40 (1966), stated:
“We perceive no threat to First Amendment guarantees in thus holding that in close cases evidence of pandering may be probative with respect to the nature of the material in question and thus satisfy the Both test.”
Defendants further contend that Minn. St. 617.241 is unconstitutional for failure to incorporate into its definition of obscenity the requirement that the material be “utterly without redeeming social value.” Defendants rely upon Stein v. Batchelor, 300 F. Supp. 602 (N. D. Tex. 1969),1 for this proposition. In that case, a three-judge Federal court found a Texas obscenity statute unconstitutional on its face, since the statute did not contain the “utterly without redeeming social value” element delineated in A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” [Fanny Hill] v. Attorney General, 383 U. S. 413, 86 S. Ct. 975, 16 L. ed. 2d 1 (1966). However, three-judge panels from Federal courts in Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, and Alabama have held that the elements of obscenity, as specified in Supreme Court cases subsequent to Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. ed. 2d 1498 (1957), need not be specifically included in a state statute.
In Cambist Films, Inc. v. Tribell, 293 F. Supp. 407 (E. D. Ky. 1963), a three-judge court held that the Kentucky statute before the court was not unconstitutional even though the statute did not explicitly contain the “utterly without redeeming social [375] value” element in defining obscenity. That court thought that Memoirs did not change the basic definition of obscenity found in Roth (and in § 617.241). The court construed Memoirs as explaining the Roth test. In Delta Book Distributors, Inc. v. Cronvich, 304 F. Supp. 662 (E. D. La. 1969), a Louisiana Federal court concurred with the court in Cambist and also found that the Louisiana statute, even though it did not contain the element of “utterly without redeeming social value,” satisfied constitutional requirements if it were judicially interpreted and applied in light of Memoirs.2
We find the reasoning in Cambist and Delta Book Distributors, Inc. persuasive in the case at bar. In addition, this court, in considering a challenge to the constitutionality of a law, is governed by well-established principles:
“A law is not to be declared unconstitutional by the courts unless palpably so. The power of the courts in this regard is to be exercised only when absolutely necessary, and then with extreme caution. Unless a law is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt it must be sustained.” 17B Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 8931.
Here, the trial court properly construed § 617.241 as including “utterly without redeeming social value” and properly instructed the jury how to interpret and apply the definition of obscenity in the statute. We find § 617.241 to be constitutional in all respects.
As already noted, defendants contend that their being sentenced on all 29 counts for violation of § 617.241 is proscribed by § 609.035, which provides:
“Except as provided in section 609.585, if a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense under the laws of this state [376] he may be punished for only one of such offenses and a conviction or acquittal of any one of them is a bar to prosecution for any other of them. All such offenses may be included in one prosecution which shall be stated in separate counts.”
We again call attention to the fact that the last paragraph of § 617.241 reads, “Any person violating any provision of this section shall be fined not less than $20 nor more than $100 for each offense.” The state contends that defendants’ conduct was separable and constituted 29 separate violations of § 617.241. The state further argues that defendants came within the scope of this statute when they exhibited, offered for sale, or attempted to distribute any film which was the subject of one of the 29 counts on which they were convicted, that is, that defendants’ criminal intent existed individually with respect to each of the 29 films, and that because any one of the 29 films could have been the subject matter of merely one prosecution and conviction without introducing the remaining 28 films into evidence, therefore each of the 29 fines represented punishment for different behavioral incidents which fell under the same statute.
The comment of the Advisory Committee on Revision of the Criminal Law on § 609.035 states in part (40 M. S. A. p. 58):
“As drawn, the recommended section will not prevent a single indictment from charging several offenses arising out of the same conduct and obtaining convictions for any or all of them, but a sentence may be imposed for only one of them which may be for the highest sentence which any one of them carries.” 3
[377] An analysis of several Minnesota cases dealing with § 609.035 is helpful in arriving at a resolution of the issue here.
In City of Bloomington v. Kossow, 269 Minn. 467, 131 N. W. 2d 206 (1964), after the defendant had been convicted of violating an ordinance prohibiting public drunkenness, he obtained a writ of prohibition to prevent prosecution for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of a state statute. This court, Mr. Chief Justice Knutson writing the opinion, held that a conviction of drunkenness under the municipal ordinance did not bar prosecution of the defendant under the state statute for drunken driving, even though the defendant’s conduct was the subject of both complaints. In interpreting § 609.035, Mr. Chief Justice Knutson said (269 Minn. 469, 131 N. W. 2d 208):
“* * * By the express language of the statute itself, all offenses arising out of a person’s conduct may be included in one prosecution by stating them in separate counts. There is nothing that bars conviction of several offenses arising out of the same conduct, but the statute does prohibit the imposition of punishment for more than one offense in such a situation.”
In State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 141 N. W. 2d 517 (1966), defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated and driving over the centerline of a roadway. Defendant pled guilty to the latter charge, and when sentencing was deferred by the trial court until the “driving under the influence” charge was disposed of, defendant moved for dismissal of that charge. Upon denial of that motion he obtained a writ of prohibition from this court, claiming that § 609.035 protected him from further prosecution after his guilty plea was received on the charge of driving over the centerline. This court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Bogosheske, held that the defendant, by requesting arraignment and [378] pleading guilty to the first charge, had waived his right under § 609.035 to protection from multiple prosecution, but that his punishment must be limited to a single sentence as prescribed by § 609.035. We discussed the applicability of § 609.035, saying (273 Minn. 398, 141 N. W. 2d 521):
“* * * Thus the instances in which the application of § 609.035 may be sought are narrowed to those where a ‘person’s conduct’ results in the commission of two or more separate or nonincluded offenses. Moreover, it must be kept in mind that the type of conduct specified must involve á multiplicity of violations rather than a single violation resulting from a single criminal act.”
This court further stated in the Johnson case (273 Minn. 404, 141 N. W. 2d 525):
“* * * [A] part from the factors of time and place, the essential ingredient of any test is whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective."
In State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 142 N. W. 2d 635 (1966), the defendant was charged with driving after revocation of his license, to which he pled guilty. He was later charged with criminal negligence when it developed that on the same day he was apprehended he had struck and killed a pedestrian with, his car. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint charging criminal negligence on the ground that he was protected from further prosecution by § 609.035, and upon the court’s denial of this motion, a writ of prohibition was obtained from this court. We discharged the writ. Citing State v. Johnson, supra, we stated (274 Minn. 123, 142 N. W. 2d 637):
“* * * While there is no necessity for reiterating the background, policy, and purpose of the statute [§ 609.035], it must be emphasized that it does prohibit multiple prosecutions as well as double punishment under circumstances where a ‘person’s [379] conduct’ (by which is meant a ‘single behavioral incident’) results in violations of more than one criminal statute. Whether the violations result from a single behavioral incident depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.”
In determining that the protection afforded by § 609.035 did not apply to the defendant in the Reiland case, this court reasoned (274 Minn. 125, 142 N. W. 2d 638):
“* * * Defendant’s state of mind or error in judgment causing him to drive after revocation may be characterized as willfully defying a statute designed to punish drivers who have had their driver’s license revoked. As such, it has no relationship to the conduct of operating and controlling a motor vehicle in a grossly negligent manner, either in cause or effect. The conduct constituting each offense is not the result of a single motivation directed toward a single goal but is essentially dissimilar and unrelated in both respects. Defendant is not being harassed by multiple prosecutions for offenses growing out of a single behavioral incident or out of the same transaction, but rather for two separate and distinct behavioral incidents. Accordingly, we hold that § 609.035 does not bar prosecution of the pending charge.”
In accord with the reasoning of the Reiland case is State v. Murphy, 277 Minn. 355, 152 N. W. 2d 507 (1967); and in accord with State v. Johnson, supra, is State v. Gladden, 274 Minn. 533, 144 N. W. 2d 779 (1966).
Other recent Minnesota decisions are State ex rel. Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353, 161 N. W. 2d 667 (1968), wherein we concluded that multiple sentences were proper for separate crimes intentionally committed against more than one individual; State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182, 163 N. W. 2d 772 (1968), where this court affirmed the findings that the defendants’ actions in terrorizing and robbing a victim were a divisible series of incidents rather than a “single behavioral incident”; and State v. Boucher, 286 Minn. 475, 176 N. W. 2d 624 (1970), where[380] in the defendant’s conviction of reckless driving in the Roseville municipal court was held to bar prosecution by the city of St. Paul on a similar charge. There the defendant had driven at speeds in excess of 90 miles per hour in an effort to escape the Roseville police, after driving through a red light, and was issued citations for reckless driving by three different municipalities. This court reversed defendant’s conviction in the St. Paul municipal court, stating (286 Minn. 479, 176 N. W. 2d 627):
“In light of the language of the statute and these prior decisions, we are compelled to hold that the conduct of defendant which commenced at Highway No. 36 and Victoria in Roseville and terminated near the intersection of Marshall and Cretin in St. Paul constituted one behavioral incident. The reckless driving which occurred in each of the municipalities through which he traveled occurred at substantially the same time and place and arose out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct on the part of defendant. It appears inescapable from the stipulation that he was driving continuously during this time at high and excessive rates of speed heedless of traffic control devices in a continuous intensive effort to evade the police officers who were pursuing him. We must infer from the stipulation that at no stage was there any interruption or surcease in the reckless operation of the vehicle. Defendant had but one state of mind, i. e., to avoid being arrested by the police officers who were pursuing him and whom he was attempting to elude. If we are to abide by the purpose and objectives of the statute and its meaning as defined by our earlier decisions, we must hold, although we might prefer otherwise, that defendant’s conduct was one continuous indivisible course of action motivated by a unity of purpose constituting reckless driving within the meaning of § 169.13, subd. 1. Since he has been convicted and punished in a court of competent jurisdiction, the former prosecution bars the present prosecution.”
The latest decision construing § 609.035 is State v. Corning, 289 Minn. 382, 184 N. W. 2d 603 (1971), holding acquittal of a [381] charge of failure to leave required information at the scene of an accident barred prosecution for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
In light of the foregoing decisions interpreting § 609.035, we must conclude that the trial court erred in imposing a fine for each of the 29 convictions and we order modification of the judgments in that respect to a limit of $100 as to each defendant.
Convictions affirmed, subject to modification of sentences in accordance with this opinion.