Tobalina v. California

Background

A person was convicted in a Los Angeles municipal court for showing an allegedly obscene movie under California Penal Code § 311.2(a), which uses the definition of “obscene matter” from § 311(a). The Appellate Department of the Superior Court affirmed the conviction. The United States Supreme Court previously sent the case back for reconsideration after its Miller decision. On remand the Appellate Department again affirmed, and the Supreme Court then denied further review.

Reasoning

The core question is whether the state may criminally punish the exhibition of sexually oriented material under the statute’s definition. Justice Brennan, joined by two other Justices, said the statutory definition is too broad and therefore unconstitutional, at least where films are shown to consenting adults and not to children or unwilling viewers. He argued the conviction should be vacated or reversed and that the defendant should have a chance to show whether local community standards were properly applied. Justice Douglas separately said any ban or regulation of obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined review, the lower-court conviction stands for now and the California obscenity statute remains enforceable in this case. The dissents indicate that some Justices would have required trials to apply local community standards and possibly ordered new proceedings. That means the legal fight over how to define and prosecute “obscenity” could continue in other cases and lower courts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan’s dissent (joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall) and Justice Douglas’s separate view disagree sharply with the denial and would have granted review and reversed the conviction.