This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant operated a bookstore in Farmington, New Mexico, selling various magazines, including five that were deemed controversial: The Best of Club, Forbidden Erotica, Hot Swinging Couples, Over 40, and Swank. Two residents investigated the store for potential violations of a local obscenity ordinance, leading to a complaint and subsequent charges of disseminating obscene materials (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Municipal Court: The Defendant and an employee were convicted of disseminating obscene materials under Farmington Ordinance Number 89-920, Section 21-50.1 (1989) (para 2).
- District Court (Trial de Novo): The Defendant appealed, but the jury again found him guilty of five counts of disseminating obscene materials. The trial court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the charges on constitutional grounds, citing untimeliness (paras 3-4).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the Farmington obscenity ordinance violated Article II, Section 17 of the New Mexico Constitution, which guarantees free speech. The Defendant also contended that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on community standards, admitted improper opinion evidence, and failed to establish that the magazines lacked serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (paras 1, 3, 25, 37, 46).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the Defendant's failure to timely file the motion to dismiss precluded him from challenging the ordinance's constitutionality. The City also argued that the ordinance was valid under both the New Mexico Constitution and the Miller test for obscenity, and that the jury instructions and evidence were proper (paras 4, 6, 25, 37).
Legal Issues
- Does the Farmington obscenity ordinance violate Article II, Section 17 of the New Mexico Constitution?
- Did the trial court err in its jury instructions regarding community standards?
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish that the magazines lacked serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
- Was the admission of lay opinion testimony on community standards improper?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals remanded the case for a new trial due to improper jury instructions on community standards (para 47).
Reasons
Per Black J. (Chavez and Pickard JJ. concurring):
Constitutionality of the Ordinance: The Court held that the Farmington obscenity ordinance did not constitute a prior restraint on speech and was not unconstitutional under Article II, Section 17. The Court reasoned that free speech is not absolute and may be limited in cases of obscenity, which can be considered an "abuse" of the right to free speech (paras 7-24).
Jury Instructions on Community Standards: The Court found that the jury instructions improperly defined community standards as what is "acceptable" or "decent" rather than what is "tolerable." The Court adopted a "tolerance" standard, requiring that material must be deemed "intolerable" by the community to constitute an abuse of free speech under the New Mexico Constitution. This error necessitated a new trial (paras 31-36).
Lay Opinion Testimony: The Court held that the admission of lay opinion testimony on community standards was not an abuse of discretion. The witnesses provided valid lay opinions based on their personal observations, and the jury was free to weigh this evidence alongside the magazines themselves (paras 37-40).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury on the first two prongs of the Miller test (prurient interest and patent offensiveness). However, the Court noted that the third prong (lack of serious value) is not judged by community standards, and appellate courts have equal authority to review this issue. The Court found no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value in the magazines (paras 41-45).
The Court emphasized that the "tolerance" standard better protects freedom of expression under the New Mexico Constitution and remanded the case for a new trial with proper jury instructions (paras 35-36, 47).