Splawn v. California

Background

A seller was convicted for distributing allegedly obscene motion pictures under California Penal Code §311.2(a), which criminalizes knowingly bringing, possessing, distributing, or exhibiting "obscene matter" for sale or distribution. The Supreme Court granted review, vacated the judgment, and sent the case back to the state courts for further consideration in light of recent Supreme Court obscenity decisions such as Miller v. California and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton.

Reasoning

The key question was whether and how California could sustain a conviction for selling allegedly obscene films under its statute after the Court’s new obscenity rulings. The Supreme Court’s action does not resolve the merits here; instead it directed the lower courts to reexamine the conviction and the statute under the standards announced in the cited cases. The immediate effect is that the earlier conviction cannot stand as a final, unreviewable judgment until the state courts apply those controlling decisions.

Real world impact

The ruling means this seller’s conviction is vacated for now and the case returns to state court for reconsideration under the Supreme Court’s recent obscenity standards. Sellers of sexually explicit films and state prosecutors must expect lower courts to apply Miller and related decisions when evaluating similar statutes. This is not a final resolution on the constitutionality of California’s law; the outcome could change on further review.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, argued the California statute is facially overbroad and would invalidate it, saying government may not wholly suppress sexually oriented materials except to protect minors or unconsenting adults. Justice Douglas would have gone further and reversed the conviction based on his view that state obscenity regulation is barred by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.