People v. Quentin
58 Misc. 2d 601 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An obscene image on the cover of a publication, which is unrelated to the content inside, can be judged for obscenity independently and is not protected by any potential socially redeeming value of the internal content. Furthermore, a general, impersonal call to illegal action in a widely distributed publication does not constitute criminal solicitation, which requires a specific entreaty to a particular person to commit a specific crime.
Facts:
- Robert Quentin and John Garcia distributed a brochure.
- The cover of the brochure explicitly depicted a naked male and female engaged in sexual intercourse superimposed on a map of the United States.
- The brochure's cover image was unrelated to the text inside the brochure.
- The internal content of the brochure contained political and counter-cultural text advocating for the breakdown of societal structures like family, church, and nation.
- The brochure also included a paragraph titled "How to make a fire bomb."
- Following the fire bomb section, the brochure provided a recipe for making Tryptamine (DMT), a psychedelic agent and controlled substance.
Procedural Posture:
- The District Attorney filed a three-count information in a New York trial court against defendants Robert Quentin and John Garcia.
- The information charged the defendants with possession of an obscene brochure, endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal solicitation.
- The defendants initially entered pleas of not guilty.
- The defendants then moved the court for leave to withdraw their pleas and file a demurrer (motion to dismiss), arguing the information failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a crime.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a brochure with an obscene cover that is unrelated to the rest of its content, which has potential social value, constitute obscenity, and does its inclusion of a recipe for a controlled substance constitute criminal solicitation?
Opinions:
Majority - Bernard Tomson, J.
Yes, as to obscenity; No, as to criminal solicitation. The court holds that the cover is 'hard-core pornography' and can be evaluated for obscenity on its own, separate from the rest of the brochure, because it is unrelated to the internal content and is exploited solely to appeal to a prurient interest. The court reasons that 'the social redeeming value, if any, of the brochure cannot shield unrelated obscenity.' Regarding solicitation, the court finds that New York Penal Law § 100.00 is intended to apply only when a specific person importunes another specified individual to commit a specific crime. It was not designed to cover a general solicitation made to a large, indefinable group, such as publishing a recipe in a brochure without any direct request or advocacy directed at a particular person.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant clarification of the 'work as a whole' test for obscenity, creating a 'severability' exception for components, like a cover, that are unrelated to the main body of a work and used for prurient appeal. This prevents creators from shielding patently obscene material by attaching it to protected speech. The decision also provides a crucial limitation on the crime of solicitation, distinguishing between direct, personal incitement and the general dissemination of information. This distinction helps protect First Amendment free speech rights by preventing the criminalization of merely publishing information that could be used for illegal purposes to a broad audience.
