Nissinoff Et Al. v. California
Court vacates convictions for people who showed allegedly obscene films and sends the case back to California court to reconsider under recent Supreme Court obscenity rulings, affecting exhibitors and prosecutors.
Holding
In this procedural ruling, the Court granted review, vacated the convictions, and remanded the case to state court to reconsider under recent Supreme Court obscenity precedents.
Real-world impact
- Sends convictions back to state court for reconsideration under recent obscenity standards.
- Could lead to reversal or modification of prosecutions against film exhibitors.
- Requires California courts to apply the Court’s new obscenity rulings to past convictions.
Topics
Summary
Background
A group of people were convicted for showing allegedly obscene motion pictures under California Penal Code §311.2(a). The convictions came from the Appellate Department of the Superior Court in Alameda County. The petition asked the Supreme Court to review whether those convictions stand under the Court’s recent obscenity decisions.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court granted review, vacated the state-court judgment, and sent the case back to the California appellate court for reconsideration in light of several recent Supreme Court decisions about obscenity (including Miller v. California and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton). The Court’s action was procedural: it did not finally decide the guilt or innocence of the people who showed the films but asked the state court to apply the new standards from those earlier decisions.
Real world impact
California courts must now reexamine these convictions using the Court’s recent obscenity rulings. That could lead to convictions being upheld, reversed, or otherwise changed depending on how the state court applies the new tests. The Supreme Court’s order is not a final decision on the constitutionality of the California law; it only requires further state-court consideration that could alter outcomes for the exhibitors and prosecutors.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, dissented, arguing the California statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and should be invalidated; Justice Douglas would have reversed the convictions outright. These views show disagreement about how broadly states may regulate sexually explicit materials.
Opinions in this case
- 1.Opinion 108953
- 2.Opinion 9425589
- 3.Opinion 9425588
Questions, answered
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents). Try:
- “What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?”
- “How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?”
- “What are the practical implications of this ruling?”