Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatuteappealtrialmotionfreedom of speechdue processobjectionmotion to dismiss
appealtrialmisdemeanorfreedom of speechdue processappellant

Related Cases

Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568
View Case »
Davis v. Commonwealth, 484 S.W.3d 288
View Case »
United States v. Choate, 276 F.2d 724, 86 A.L.R.2d 1337
View Case »
Davis v. People, 871 P.2d 769
View Case »
United States v. Descamps, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2016 WL 5843002
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Butler v. State of Mich., 352 U.S. 380, 77 S.Ct. 524, 1 L.Ed.2d 412

Facts

The defendant was charged with violating Michigan Penal Code s 750.343 for selling a book to a police officer that contained language considered obscene and potentially harmful to minors. The trial judge found the book's content objectionable and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, asserting that the book's language was not necessary for its overall theme. The defendant was fined $100, and after the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Appellant was charged with its violation for selling to a police officer what the trial judge characterized as ‘a book containing obscene, immoral, lewd, lascivious language, or descriptions, tending to incite minors to violent or depraved or immoral acts, manifestly tending to the corruption of the morals of youth.’ Appellant moved to dismiss the proceeding on the claim that application of s 343 unduly restricted freedom of speech as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…

Issue

Does the Michigan statute prohibiting the distribution of literature deemed harmful to minors violate the Due Process Clause by restricting freedom of speech for adults?

This appeal from a judgment of conviction entered by the Recorder's Court of the City of Detroit, Michigan challenges the constitutionality of the following provision, s 343, of the Michigan Penal Code, Comp.Laws Supp.1954, s 750.343: ‘Any person who shall import, print, publish, sell, possess with the intent to sell, design, prepare, loan, give away, distribute or offer for sale, any book, magazine, newspaper, writing, pamphlet, ballad, printed paper, print, picture, drawing, photograph, publication or other thing, including any recordings, containing obscene, immoral, lewd or lascivious language, or obscene, immoral, lewd or lascivious prints, pictures, figures or descriptions, tending to incite minors to violent or depraved or immoral acts, manifestly tending to the corruption of the morals of youth… shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.’

Rule

The court applied the principle that laws restricting freedom of speech must not unduly limit access to literature for adults based on its potential influence on minors.

It is clear on the record that appellant was convicted because Michigan, by s 343, made it an offense for him to make available for the general reading public (and he in fact sold to a police officer) a book that the trial judge found to have a potentially deleterious influence upon youth.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the Michigan statute and determined that it imposed an unreasonable restriction on the adult population by limiting their access to literature that might be deemed inappropriate for children. The court emphasized that the statute's broad application effectively reduced adults to reading only what is suitable for children, which infringes upon individual liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.

The incidence of this enactment is to reduce the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children. It thereby arbitrarily curtails one of those liberties of the individual, now enshrined in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that history has attested as the indispensable conditions for the maintenance and progress of a free society.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the defendant's conviction, ruling that the Michigan statute unconstitutionally restricted freedom of speech.

We are constrained to reverse this conviction.

Who won?

The defendant prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the Michigan statute unduly restricted freedom of speech, violating the Due Process Clause.

The State insists that, by thus quarantining the general reading public against books not too rugged for grown men and women in order to shield juvenile innocence, it is exercising its power to promote the general welfare.

You must be