Matheny v. Alabama
Headline: Denial leaves Alabama vendor’s obscenity conviction intact while dissenters warn the state law is too broad and that nude photographs alone should not be criminalized.
Holding:
- Leaves seller’s conviction and sentence in place for now.
- Creates uncertainty for sellers of sexually oriented materials facing prosecution.
- Signals possibility of later review if lower courts or new appeals raise the issue.
Summary
Background
Gerald Matheny, a seller in Montgomery County, Alabama, was convicted under a state law that bans “obscene” printed or written material. A three-count indictment accused him of selling a magazine with photographs of nude women (some showing genitals) and two short novels describing sexual acts. The jury was told it could convict on any one count, then returned a single general verdict finding him guilty. The trial court sentenced him to six months in jail and a $500 fine. Alabama appellate courts affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case.
Reasoning
Because the Court denied review, it made no final ruling on the constitutional question. Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, wrote a dissent arguing the state statute is overbroad and should be invalidated. He explained that, under the Court’s obscenity standards, mere nudity is not necessarily obscene and the magazine in Count One likely did not depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way. Because the jury could have based its general guilty verdict solely on the magazine count, Brennan said the conviction could not stand and should be reversed under prior practice.
Real world impact
As a result of the denial, Matheny’s conviction and sentence remain in effect for now. Sellers of sexually oriented material in Alabama may continue to face prosecution under the challenged statute while legal questions about overbreadth and what counts as obscenity remain unresolved. The dissent signals that some Justices view the statute as unconstitutional, so future challenges or appeals could reach the Court again.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan’s dissent, joined by two colleagues, is the key disagreement and explains why those Justices would have granted review and overturned the conviction.
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?