United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.
513 U.S. 64 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a federal criminal statute, a scienter requirement should be read to apply to each element that criminalizes otherwise innocent conduct, especially when a contrary reading would raise serious constitutional questions. The term 'knowingly' in 18 U.S.C. § 2252 thus applies not only to the act of distribution but also to the facts that the material is sexually explicit and that the performers are minors.
Facts:
- Rubin Gottesman owned and operated X-Citement Video, Inc., a pornography distributor.
- Undercover police officers targeted X-Citement Video for an investigation.
- During the investigation, media reports revealed that actress Traci Lords had appeared in pornographic films while under the age of 18.
- An undercover officer, Steven Takeshita, specifically requested videotapes featuring Traci Lords from Gottesman.
- Gottesman sold Officer Takeshita 49 videotapes featuring Lords that were made before her 18th birthday.
- Two months later, Gottesman shipped an additional eight videotapes of the underage Traci Lords to Officer Takeshita in Hawaii.
Procedural Posture:
- Rubin Gottesman and X-Citement Video, Inc. were indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for violating federal child pornography statutes.
- After a bench trial, the District Court convicted the respondents on all counts.
- Respondents appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which initially remanded the case.
- On remand, the District Court refused to set aside the conviction.
- Respondents appealed to the Ninth Circuit for a second time.
- The Ninth Circuit held that the statute did not contain a scienter requirement as to the age of the minor and was therefore facially unconstitutional, reversing the convictions.
- The United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 the term 'knowingly' in the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2252, require the government to prove that a defendant knew a performer was a minor to secure a conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes. The term 'knowingly' in 18 U.S.C. § 2252 extends to both the sexually explicit nature of the material and the minority status of the performers. Although a literal grammatical reading suggests 'knowingly' only modifies the verbs of transportation and distribution, such a reading would lead to absurd results, criminalizing the conduct of unwitting parties like postal carriers or film developers. The Court relied on the strong presumption that criminal statutes, particularly those with harsh penalties that are not 'public welfare' offenses, include a scienter requirement for all elements that distinguish innocent from wrongful conduct. Because sexually explicit material featuring adults is protected by the First Amendment, the age of the performer is the crucial element of the crime. To avoid the serious constitutional doubts that would arise from a statute that punishes an individual without knowledge of this crucial fact, the Court, applying the canon of constitutional avoidance, interprets 'knowingly' to apply to the performer's age.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. A commonsense reading of a criminal statute introduced by the word 'knowingly' is that the adverb modifies each element of the offense. To read 'knowingly' as applying only to the act of shipping a 'visual depiction,' without regard to its content, would be ridiculous. Therefore, the more reasonable interpretation is that the scienter requirement applies to all the facts that must be proven for a conviction.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The plain language of the statute is unambiguous and cannot support the majority's interpretation. The Court's precedents on implying scienter apply only when a statute is silent or ambiguous, not when, as here, Congress has provided an explicit scienter requirement whose grammatical application is clear. The majority improperly converts a rule of interpretation into a rule of law, rewriting the statute in a way its text cannot bear. While a statute lacking a scienter requirement as to the pornographic nature of the material would be unconstitutional, a statute imposing strict liability for the performer's age upon those who knowingly deal in hardcore pornography would not raise serious constitutional doubts, given the government's 'surpassing importance' in protecting children and the low First Amendment value of such material.
Analysis:
This case is a significant landmark in statutory interpretation, affirming the judiciary's power to interpret statutes to avoid constitutional problems, even if it requires departing from the most natural grammatical reading. It solidifies the principle that courts will presume a broad scienter requirement applies to all material elements of a serious crime, thereby protecting individuals from criminal liability for conduct they did not know was illegal. This decision placed a higher burden on prosecutors in child pornography cases, requiring them to prove the defendant's knowledge of the performer's age. It also serves as a guide for legislative drafting, signaling that if Congress intends to create a strict liability offense for a particular element, it must do so with unmistakable clarity.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.