| California v. Freeman
|
CA_SC_seal.jpg
Supreme Court of California
|
| August 25, 1988
|
| Full case name:
| The People v. Harold Freeman
|
| Citations:
| 46 Cal. 3d 419; 758 P.2d 1128; 250 Cal. Rptr. 598; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 171; 15 Media L. Rep. 2072
|
| Prior appellate history:
| 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)
|
| Subsequent appellate history:
| Stay denied, 488 U.S. 1311 (1989); certiorari denied, 489 U.S. 1017 (1989)
|
|
| Holding
|
| California pandering statute did not criminalize the hiring of actors for nonobscene adult films.
|
| Court membership
|
| 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)
|
|
| Case opinions
|
| Majority by: Kaufman
|
| Joined by: Mosk, Broussard, Panelli, Kline
|
| Concurring without separate opinion: Lucas, Eagleson
|
|
| Laws applied
|
| U.S. Const. Amend. I; Cal. Penal Code ยงยง 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
|
