State v. Hungerford
Opinions
Relator, Lawrence Hungerford, has been found guilty and sentenced under a charge of exhibiting and displaying obscene material, in violation of R.S. 14 106.1 We granted writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.2 On December 3, 1973, under the mandate of the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), and companion cases, this Court held R.S. 14.106(A) (2) and (3) to be unconstitutional in State v. Shreveport News Agency, Inc., 287 So.2d 464 (La.1973). This holding has been repeated in the following cases: State v. McNutt, 287 So.2d 478 (La.1973), and State v. Gay Times, Inc., La., 294 So.2d 496, decided April 29, 1974.
The argument is made in the instant case that this defendant was informed, in answer to a bill of particulars, that the prosecution was proceeding under R.S. 14:106(A) (7), as well as under R.S. 14:106 (A) (2) and (3). The contention is then made that R.S. 14:106(A) (7) is constitu[300]*300tional and that the conviction and sentence can stand.
For the reasons stated by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. California, supra, and by this Court in previous decisions, we are mandated to declare R.S. 14:106(A) (7) unconstitutional. We adhere to the previous holdings in regard to R.S. 14:106(A) (2) and (3).
Since R.S. 14:106(A) (2) (3) and (7) are unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court pronouncement in Miller v. California, supra, the conviction and sentence are annulled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
296 So. 2d 299 (State v. Hungerford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.