Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

West Vs. Texas

West vs Texas

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1973
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/103416

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
414 U.S. 961
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

West

Respondent

Texas

Excerpt

.....with whom mr. justice stewart and mr. justice marshall join, dissenting. petitioner was convicted on charges of exhibiting page 414 u.s. 961 , 962 allegedly obscene matter in violation of art. 527, 3, of the vernon's ann. texas penal code, which provides as follows: 'every person who knowingly: sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or distribution, or in this state prepares for distribution, publishes, prints, exhibits, distributes, or offers to distribute, or has in his possession with intent to distribute or to exhibit or offer to distribute, any obscene matter is guilty of a misdemeanor.' it is my view that, 'at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults, the first and fourteenth amendments prohibit the state and federal governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly 'obscene' contents.' paris adult theatre i v. slaton, 413 u.s. 49, 113 (1973) (dissenting opinion). it is clear that, tested by that constitutional standard, art. 527, 3, is constitutionally overbroad and therefore invalid on its face. for the reasons stated in my dissent in miller v. california, 413 u.s. 15, 47 (1973), i would therefore grant certiorari, vacate the judgment of the texas court of criminal appeals, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with my dissent in paris adult. in that circumstance, i have no occasion to consider whether the questions presented in the petition merit plenary review. see heller v. new york, 413 u.s. 483, 494 (1973) (dissent of brennan, j.). mr. justice douglas, being of the view that state obscenity regulation is prohibited by the fourteenth and first amendments (see paris adult theatre i v. slaton, 413 u.s. 49, 70 ( douglas, j., dissenting)), would grant certiorari in each of these cases and reverse the judgments of conviction.

Full Judgment

WEST v. TEXAS - 414 U.S. 961 (1973)
U.S. Supreme Court WEST v. TEXAS , 414 U.S. 961 (1973)

414 U.S. 961

Alton A. WEST
v.
State of TEXAS.
No. 72-1506.

Supreme Court of the United States

October 23, 1973

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Petition for writ of certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 , 93 S. Ct. 2628 (1973); Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115 , 93 S. Ct. 2680 (1973); United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Super 8 mm. Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973); United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139 (1973); Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973); Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496 (1973); and Alexander v. Virginia, 413 U.S. 836 (1973).

Opinion on remand, Tex.Cr.App., 514 S.W.2d 433.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice MARSHALL join, dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted on charges of exhibiting

Page 414 U.S. 961 , 962

allegedly obscene matter in violation of Art. 527, 3, of the Vernon's Ann. Texas Penal Code, which provides as follows:

    'Every person who knowingly: sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or distribution, or in this state prepares for distribution, publishes, prints, exhibits, distributes, or offers to distribute, or has in his possession with intent to distribute or to exhibit or offer to distribute, any obscene matter is guilty of a misdemeanor.'

It is my view that, 'at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the state and federal governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly 'obscene' contents.' Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 113 (1973) (dissenting opinion). It is clear that, tested by that constitutional standard, Art. 527, 3, is constitutionally overbroad and therefore invalid on its face. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 47 (1973), I would therefore grant certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with my dissent in Paris Adult. In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the questions presented in the petition merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483, 494 (1973) (dissent of Brennan, J.).

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, being of the view that state obscenity regulation is prohibited by the Fourteenth and First Amendments (see Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 70 ( Douglas, J., dissenting)), would grant certiorari in each of these cases and reverse the judgments of conviction.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial