Smith v. United States
431 U.S. 291, 52 L. Ed. 2d 324, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 92 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that does not regulate the distribution of obscene materials to adults is not conclusive in determining the 'contemporary community standard' in a federal obscenity prosecution; this standard remains a question of fact for the jury to decide based on their understanding of the community's actual tolerance.
Facts:
- Between February and October 1974, petitioner Jerry Lee Smith knowingly caused obscene materials to be mailed from Des Moines, Iowa.
- The materials were sent to post office box addresses in two other southern Iowa communities, making the mailings wholly intrastate.
- The mailings were made at the request of United States postal inspectors who used fictitious names.
- The materials included magazines and films depicting various explicit sexual acts.
- At the time of Smith's mailings, Iowa state law did not criminalize or proscribe the distribution of obscene material to consenting adults.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry Lee Smith was indicted on seven counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1461 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, a federal trial court.
- The trial court rejected Smith's proposed voir dire questions concerning jurors' knowledge of community standards and state law.
- Following a trial, the jury found Smith guilty on all seven counts.
- Smith's motion for a new trial was denied by the District Court.
- Smith, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, finding no error, affirmed the conviction of the appellee, the United States.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 state law that declines to regulate the distribution of obscene material to adults conclusively define the 'contemporary community standard' for prurient interest and patent offensiveness in a federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1461 for a mailing that occurred entirely within that state?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No. A state law regulating obscenity does not conclusively define contemporary community standards in a federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1461. The determination of community standards—what appeals to the prurient interest and is patently offensive—is a question of fact for the jury, not a legal definition that can be fixed by a legislature. Because this is a federal prosecution under Congress's constitutional Postal Power, federal law governs, and federal supremacy principles prevent a state statute from being controlling. A state's decision not to regulate obscenity may reflect various policy choices, such as resource allocation, and does not necessarily mean the community condones the material. The state law is relevant evidence of community mores that a jury may consider, but it is not binding.
Concurring - Justice Powell
No. Community standards, as used in the Miller test, do not necessarily follow changes in a state's statutory law. A community may still find materials patently offensive and appealing to the prurient interest even if its legislature has chosen not to apply criminal sanctions to their distribution. Congress did not intend to incorporate state obscenity statutes into 18 U.S.C. § 1461. While the Iowa statute is relevant evidence of evolving community standards, it is not controlling in a prosecution under federal law.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
The petitioner's conviction should be reversed. The federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1461, is clearly overbroad and unconstitutional on its face. Therefore, no conviction under it can stand.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
The conviction should be reversed. A federal criminal statute should prescribe a uniform national standard, and the 'community standards' test is unworkably vague, subjective, and leads to unreviewable ad hoc jury decisions. The line between 'offensive' and non-offensive speech is too blurry to define criminal conduct. Criminal prosecution is an unacceptable method for regulating erotic material that has some First Amendment protection; civil regulation would be more appropriate. In this case, Smith's actions did not constitute a public nuisance, as he sent the materials only to a consenting recipient in a sealed envelope, and therefore should not be the basis for a criminal prosecution.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of federal supremacy in the context of obscenity law and the regulation of U.S. mail. It clarifies that 'contemporary community standards' under the Miller test are a factual inquiry into a community's tolerance, not a legal standard defined by state legislation. The ruling creates a dual-risk environment for distributors of adult materials; compliance with permissive state laws provides no safe harbor from federal prosecution. This reinforces the separation between a state's policy choices on public morality and the federal government's distinct interest in policing the mail system.
