Indiana Supreme Court, 1973

Stroud v. State

Indiana Supreme Court · Decided August 21, 1973 · Arterburn

300 N.E.2d 100; 261 Ind. 58 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

24 later published cases cite this decision.

Commonwealth v. Horton (Mass. 1974)
State v. Lesieure (R.I. 1979)
Kent County Prosecutor v. Robert Emmett Goodrich Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 1974)
Theodore L. Sendak, Etc. v. Clyde Nihiser, Dba Movieland Drive-In Theater (Supreme Court of the United States 1975)
State v. Princess Cinema of Milwaukee, Inc. (Wis. 1980)
Massey v. City of Mishawaka (Ind. Ct. App. 1978)
State v. Phillips (Utah 1975)
State v. Welke (Minn. 1974)
Nihiser v. Sendak (District Court, N.D. Indiana 1974)
West v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)
Ballew v. State (Ala. 1974)
Mohney v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 1974)
Mohney v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 1973)
Thomas v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 1973)
Sovereign News Co. v. Falke (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1977)
ABC Interstate Theatres, Inc. v. State (Miss. 1976)
State Ex Rel. Wayne Prosecutor v. Diversified Theatrical Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
Vernon Walker Huffman v. United States of America, Dennis Eugene Pryba v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1974)
State v. Bryant (N.C. 1974)
Mangum v. Maryland State Board of Censors (Md. 1974)
Miranda v. Hicks (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1974)
State v. De Santis (N.J. 1974)
Mohney v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 1973)
Stroud v. State (Ind. 1973)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Arterburn, C.J.

This Court affirmed [Stroud v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 204, 273 N. E. 2d 842] the conviction in the above case on a charge of “sale of obscene literature” based upon IC 1971, 35-30-10-1 [Burns Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-2803 (1956 Repl.)], entitled “Obscene literature and devices —Circulation possession, manufacture.”, and thereafter the appellant-defendant applied for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court and that Court on the 25th day of June, 1973, having granted certiorari, vacated our judgment affirming the conviction and remanded the cause to this court “for further consideration in light of Miller v. California (1973), 413 U.S. 15; Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973), 413 U.S. 49; Kaplan v. California (1973), 413 U.S. 115; U.S. v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Super 8mm Film (1973), 413 U.S. 123; U.S. v. Orito (1973), 413 U.S. 139; Heller v. N. Y. (1973), 413 U.S. 483; Roaden v. Ky. (1973), 413 U.S. 496; and Alexander v. Virginia (1973), 413 U.S. 836.”

The main thrust of those opinions, so far as applicable to this case, is that the statute under which the appellant was convicted is unconstitutional for the reason that it is too general in nature and does not set out specifically the sexual *60 or obscene acts which, when depicted in any of the media named by the statute, constitute a violation of the statute.

Pursuant to the order and direction of the United States Supreme Court we hold the statute involved in this case as unconstitutional on the grounds announced by that Court.

Therefore, pursuant to the Order of the United States Supreme Court, the judgment and conviction of appellant-defendant is reversed and remanded to the trial court, and pursuant to the order of the United States Supreme Court, the trial court is directed to discharge the defendant.

All Justices concur.

Note. — Reported in 300 N. E. 2d 100.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.