Trinkler v. Alabama

Background

A man convicted in Montgomery County, Alabama, was found guilty of selling allegedly obscene printed matter under Title 14, § 374(4) of the Alabama Code. That statute defines "obscene" by reference to § 374(3) as material that is "lewd, lascivious, filthy and pornographic" and appeals to prurient interest by contemporary community standards. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court granted review, vacated the judgment, and sent the case back to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals for further consideration in light of two recent Supreme Court decisions, Hamling and Jenkins. The High Court did not resolve the underlying constitutional question about the statute’s validity on the merits in this order. Justice Douglas stated he would have gone further and reversed, taking the view that any state ban on obscenity is barred by the First Amendment as applied to the States. Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, dissented from the Court’s disposition and argued that § 374(4) is overbroad and should be invalidated.

Real world impact

Practically, the decision vacates the existing conviction and requires the state appellate court to re-evaluate the case under the Court’s recent obscenity rulings. The result is not a final judgment on the statute’s constitutionality; the conviction remains unsettled until the Alabama court follows the Supreme Court’s guidance. Sellers of sexually explicit material may get another review of their convictions.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan’s dissent says the statute is facially overbroad and would vacate the conviction; Justice Douglas would have reversed on broader First Amendment grounds.