TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

West v. Texas

Alton A. West v. State of Texas

West v. Texas, 414 U.S. 961 (1973)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
October 23, 1973
Docket
No. 72-1506
Judges
Brennan, Stewart, Marshall
Citations
414 U.S. 96194 S. Ct. 26838 L. Ed. 2d 2091973 U.S. LEXIS 1081

Opinion of the Court

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49 (1973); Kaplan v. California, 413 U. S. 115 (1973); United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U. S. 123 (1973); United States v. Orito, 413 U. S. 139 (1973); Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483 (1973); Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U. S. 496 (1973); and Alexander v. Virginia, 413 U. S. 836 (1973). Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the view that state obscenity regulation is prohibited by the Fourteenth and First Amendments (see Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 70 (Douglas, J., dissenting)), would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment of conviction.

Dissent — Brennan

Mr. Justice Brennan, with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall join,

dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted on charges of exhibiting *962 allegedly obscene matter in violation of Tex. Penal Code, Art. 527, § 3 (Supp. 1972-1973), which provides as follows:

“Every person who knowingly: sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or distribution, or in this state prepares for distribution, publishes, prints, exhibits, distributes, or offers to distribute, or has in his possession with intent to distribute or to exhibit or offer to distribute, any obscene matter is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

It is my view that, “at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to uncon-senting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the State and Federal Governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly 'obscene’ contents.” Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 113 (1973) (dissenting opinion). It is clear that, tested by that constitutional standard, Art. 527, § 3, is constitutionally overbroad and therefore invalid on its face. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 47 (1973), I would therefore grant certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with my dissent in Paris Adult Theatre I . In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the questions presented in the petition merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 494 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document

414 U.S. 961 94 S.Ct. 268 38 L.Ed.2d 209

Alton A. WEST v. State of TEXAS.

No. 72-1506.

Supreme Court of the United States

October 23, 1973

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Petition for writ of certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 , 93 S.Ct. 2628 , 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973); Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115 , 93 S.Ct. 2680 , 37 L.Ed.2d 492 (1973); United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Super 8 mm. Film, 413 U.S. 123 , 93 S.Ct. 2665 , 37 L.Ed.2d 500 (1973); United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139 , 93 S.Ct. 2674 , 37 L.Ed.2d 513 (1973); Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 , 93 S.Ct. 2789 , 37 L.Ed.2d 745 (1973); Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496 , 93 S.Ct. 2796 , 37 L.Ed.2d 757 (1973); and Alexander v. Virginia, 413 U.S. 836 , 93 S.Ct. 2803 , 37 L.Ed. 993 (1973).

Opinion on remand, Tex.Cr.App., 514 S.W.2d 433 .

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice MARSHALL join, dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted on charges of exhibiting allegedly obscene matter in violation of Art. 527, § 3, of the Vernon's Ann. Texas Penal Code, which provides as follows:

'Every person who knowingly: sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or distribution, or in this state prepares for distribution, publishes, prints, exhibits, distributes, or offers to distribute, or has in his possession with intent to distribute or to exhibit or offer to distribute, any obscene matter is guilty of a misdemeanor.'

It is my view that, 'at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the state and federal governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly 'obscene' contents.' Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 113 , 93 S.Ct. 2628 , 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973) (dissenting opinion). It is clear that, tested by that constitutional standard, Art. 527, § 3, is constitutionally overbroad and therefore invalid on its face. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 47 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), I would therefore grant certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with my dissent in Paris Adult . In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the questions presented in the petition merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483, 494 , 93 S.Ct. 2789 , 37 L.Ed.2d 745 (1973) (dissent of Brennan, J.).

1

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, being of the view that state obscenity regulation is prohibited by the Fourteenth and First Amendments (see Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 70 , 93 S.Ct. 2628 , 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (Douglas, J., dissenting)), would grant certiorari in each of these cases and reverse the judgments of conviction.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1974: 21975: 119742026peak 1974 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. West v. State514 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)
  2. Burkett v. State516 S.W.2d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)
  3. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. v. Vance404 F. Supp. 33 (S.D. Tex. 1975)

Most recent

  1. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. v. Vance404 F. Supp. 33 (S.D. Tex. 1975)
  2. Burkett v. State516 S.W.2d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)
  3. West v. State514 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 11

DepthCaseCited by
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973) 882
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) 2,283
Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973) 409
United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8MM. Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973) 403
Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496 (1973) 390
Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115 (1973) 279
United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139 (1973) 278
Alexander v. Virginia, 413 U.S. 836 (1973) 81
West v. State, 514 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) 23

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list