Sandquist v. California
Headline: Court refuses to review a California obscenity conviction, leaving a movie exhibitor’s guilty verdict and the state’s obscenity law in place while dissenters urge retrial under local community standards.
Holding: The Court denied the petition for review, leaving in place the California conviction for showing allegedly obscene films and allowing enforcement of the state obscenity law while the lower-court judgment stands.
- Leaves the California obscenity conviction and statute in effect for now.
- Dissenters would have required retrial under local community standards.
- Creates uncertainty about when local community standards must be applied.
Summary
Background
A person was convicted in Los Angeles for exhibiting allegedly obscene motion pictures under California Penal Code § 311.2, which uses a definition of "obscene matter" based on prurient appeal and lack of redeeming social importance. The state appellate department affirmed the conviction, certification was denied, and the Supreme Court denied the petition for review.
Reasoning
The Court’s action was to deny review of the state court judgment; it did not reach the case’s merits. Several Justices dissented. Justice Brennan, joined by two colleagues, argued the California definition is overly broad and unconstitutional because it could allow wholesale suppression of sexually oriented materials except where juveniles or unwilling adults are involved. Brennan said the petitioner’s films were not assessed by local community standards and therefore the defendant should be allowed to introduce evidence on the applicable local standard.
Real world impact
Because the Supreme Court declined to review, the conviction and the state obscenity law remain enforceable for now. The dissenters would have granted review, reversed the conviction, and sent the case back for a new trial applying local community standards. This leaves unresolved whether and when materials of this kind must be judged by local community norms rather than broader state definitions.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan’s dissent argues the statute is facially invalid and urges vacating the judgment and remanding for a new trial under local community standards so the defendant can present relevant evidence.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
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?