California V. Freeman

bgcolor="6699FF" | California v. Freeman
align="center" | 100px
Supreme Court of California
bgcolor="6699FF" | August 25, 1988
{| align="center"
valign="top"|Full case name: valign="top"|The People v. Harold Freeman
valign="top"|Citations: valign="top"|46 Cal. 3d 419; 758 P.2d 1128; 250 Cal. Rptr. 598; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 171; 15 Media L. Rep. 2072
valign="top"|Prior history: valign="top"|Defendant convicted, Superior Court, Los Angeles County; conviction affirmed, 233 Cal. Rptr. 510 (Cal. Ct.App. 1987); sentence affirmed, 234 Cal. Rptr. 245 (Cal. Ct.App. 1987); review granted, 734 P.2d 562 (Ca. 1987)
valign="top"|Subsequent history: valign="top"|Stay denied, 488 U.S. 1311 (1989); certiorari denied, 489 U.S. 1017 (1989) }
bgcolor="6699FF" | Holding
California pandering statute did not criminalize the hiring of actors for nonobscene adult films.
bgcolor="6699FF" | Court membership
{| align="center"
Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas
Associate Justices Marcus Kaufman, Stanley Mosk, Allan Broussard, Edward Panelli, David Eagleson, Anthony Kline (Court of Appeal justice, sitting by asignment) }
bgcolor="6699FF" | Case opinions
{| align="center"
Majority by: Kaufman
Joined by: Mosk, Broussard, Panelli, Kline
Concurring without separate opinion: Lucas, Eagleson
bgcolor="6699FF" | Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. I; Cal. Penal Code 266I, 647
Harold Freeman was a pornographic film producer who was arrested for pandering as part of an attempt by the State of California to shut down the pornographic film industry. He was convicted, and lost on appeal to the California Court of Appeals. The trial judge, however, thought jail would be an unreasonably harsh penalty for Freeman's conduct, and sentenced him to probation, despite the fact that this was explicitly contrary to the statute. The State appealed this sentence but lost. The California Supreme Court subsequently overturned Freeman's conviction, that the California pandering statute was not intended to cover the hiring of actors who would be engaging in sexually explicit but nonobscene performances. Freeman could only have been lawfully convicted of pandering if he had paid the actors for the purpose of sexually gratifying himself or the actors. The court relied upon the language of the statute for this interpretation, as well as the need to avoid a conflict with the First Amendment right to free speech. The court viewed Freeman's conviction as "a somewhat transparent attempt at an 'end run' around the First Amendment and the state obscenity laws." The State of California unsuccessfully tried to get this judgment overturned in the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor denied a stay of the California Supreme Court's judgment, finding that its ruling was founded on an independent and adequate basis of state law. The full Court subsequently denied review. As a result of this precedent, the making of hardcore pornography was effectively legalized in California.

Reference

External links

 

<< PreviousWord BrowserNext >>
brushfield spots
stephen singer brewster
coopers brewery
charcot's triad
pedro nel ospina
masanori takeishi
masanori matsuyama
vinean
dimitri alexeev
mariano ospina prez
other: british and irish poetry since 1970
jeronimo de la ossa
choanal atresia
shuji hayakawa
colles' fracture
jos eusebio otalora
barker college
hornsby
nonna otescu
walter r. cooney, jr.
conduction aphasia
common bile duct
strathmore, syracuse
elwell stephen otis
yoko tsuno
cushing's triad
joseph wilton
graham e. bell
todor kolev
swiss cottage
cysticercosis
milan antal
philip william otterbein
cystic duct
seventh coalition
karl augustesen
christoph ignaz abele
brian p. roman
ide oumarou
fushimi ku, kyoto
stefan tzanev
jeff alu
benjamin pond
matthias abele