No. 13188
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
1976
U.S. MANUFACTURING AND
DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
CITY OF GREAT FALLS,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court o f t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable P a u l G. H a t f i e l d , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record :
For Appellant :
E. F. G i a n o t t i a r g u e d and Ralph Randono a r g u e d ,
G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
F o r Respondent :
L a r s e n and G l i k o , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
David V. G l i k o a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
Submitted: F e b r u a r y 4, 1976
Decided: -: :.E
5 ..j/fj
Filed :
. -.
, ,
- 4 4 7 :
i J
Mr. J u s t i c e C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f t h e e i g h t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t ,
County
~ a s c a d e / , h a s d e c l a r e d a p o r t i o n o f Montana's r e c e n t l y amended
o b s c e n i t y law, s e c t i o n s 94-8-110 and 94-8-110.1, R.C.M. 1947,
t o be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n f i r m . I n t h i s a p p e a l from t h a t
d e c l a r a t o r y judgment we r e v e r s e t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e d i s -
t r i c t c o u r t and uphold t h e o b s c e n i t y law e n a c t e d by t h e F o r t y -
fourth Legislature.
The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e h e r e a r o s e from a somewhat
complicated procedural s e t t i n g . U.S.Manufacturing and D i s t r i b u -
t i n g Corporation, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s a p p e l l a n t , sought
a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r a g a i n s t r e s p o n d e n t C i t y of G r e a t
Falls. A p p e l l a n t s o u g h t t o e n j o i n t h e c i t y from i n t e r f e r e n c e
w i t h i t s b u s i n e s s o p e r a t i o n t h r o u g h t h e enforcement of a r e c e n t l y
e n a c t e d m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e on o b s c e n i t y . The m a t e r i a l p o r t i o n
of t h a t o r d i n a n c e , No. 1862, r e a d s :
"6-1-9: OBSCENE MATERIAL PROHIBITED: S a l e and
D i s t r i b u t i o n of Obscene M a t e r i a l --- I t i s
u n l a w f u l t o any p e r s o n t o knowingly send o r
c a u s e t o be s e n t , b r i n g o r c a u s e t o be b r o u g h t
i n t o t h e C i t y of G r e a t F a l l s f o r s a l e o r d i s -
t r i b u t i o n o r prepare, publish, p r i n t , exhibit,
d i s t r i b u t e o r o f f e r t o d i s t r i b u t e , o r have i n
h i s possession with i n t e n t t o d i s t r i b u t e o r t o
e x h i b i t o r o f f e r t o d i s t r i b u t e any obscene
material."
R e s p o n d e n t ' s answer d e n i e d t h e p r o p r i e t y o f i n j u n c t i v e
r e l i e f and moved t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment
t o r e s o l v e t h e a d m i t t e d c o n f l i c t between t h e m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e
and t h e s t a t e s t a t u t e r e g u l a t i n g o b s c e n i t y . That s t a t u t e provides
i n pertinent part:
"94-8-110 O b s c e n i t y (1) A p e r s o n commits t h e
o f f e n s e of o b s c e n i t y when, w i t h knowledge of t h e
obscene n a t u r e t h e r e o f , he p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly:
" ( a ) S e l l s , d e l i v e r s o r provides, o r o f f e r s o r
a g r e e s t o s e l l , d e l i v e r o r p r o v i d e any obscene
writing, picture, record, o r other representation
o r embodiment of t h e o b s c e n e t o anyone under t h e
a g e of e i g h t e e n ( 1 8 ) ; o r
" ( b ) P r e s e n t s o r d i r e c t s an obscene play, dance
o r o t h e r performance o r p a r t i c i p a t e s i n t h a t
p o r t i o n t h e r e o f which makes i t o b s c e n e t o anyone
under t h e a g e of e i g h t e e n ( 1 8 ) ; o r
" ( c ) P u b l i s h e s , e x h i b i t s , o r o t h e r w i s e makes
a v a i l a b l e a n y t h i n g o b s c e n e t o anyone under t h e
a g e of e i g h t e e n ( 1 8 ) , o r
" ( d ) Performs an o b s c e n e a c t o r o t h e r w i s e p r e s e n t s
a n obscene e x h i b i t i o n o f h i s body t o anyone under
t h e age of eighteen (18) ; o r
" ( e ) Creates, buys, p r o c u r e s o r p o s s e s s e s o b s c e n e
m a t t e r o r m a t e r i a l with t h e purpose t o disseminate
it t o anyone under t h e a g e of e i g h t e e n ( 1 8 ) ; o r
" ( f ) A d v e r t i s e s o r o t h e r w i s e promotes t h e s a l e o f
obscene m a t e r i a l o r m a t e r i a l s r e p r e s e n t e d o r h e l d
o u t by him t o be obscene.
" ( 5 ) N c i t y o r m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e may be a d o p t e d
o
which i s more r e s t r i c t i v e a s t o o b s c e n i t y t h a n t h e
p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s s e c t i o n and s e c t i o n 94-8-110.1."
~ h u s h i l e t h e m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e and t h e s t a t e s t a t u t e d e f i n e
w
o b s c e n e m a t e r i a l i n s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same t e r m s , t h e c i t y o r d i -
nance p r o h i b i t s s a l e o r d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s u c h m a t e r i a l t o t h o s e
I
over eighteen (18) y e a r s a s well. W e a r e n o t h e r e concerned
w i t h t h e wisdom of e i t h e r p r o h i b i t i o n .
Appellant joined respondent's r e q u e s t f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y
judgment. Hearing was had. Subsequently t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
e n t e r e d a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment which s t a t e d i n p a r t :
"IT I S THEREFORE ORDERED t h a t S e n a t e B i l l No.
250 [ s e c t i o n s 94-8-110 and 94-8-110.11 enacted
by t h e 4 4 t h L e g i s l a t u r e o f t h e S t a t e of Montana
and made e f f e c t i v e on A p r i l 1 4 , 1975, i s un-
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n p a r t by e f f e c t i n g t o r e s t r i c t
C i t i e s and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s from e n a c t i n g
o r d i n a n c e s more r e s t r i c t i v e t h a n s a i d S t a t e
law and t h a t Ordinance No. 1862, p a s s e d by t h e
Commission of t h e C i t y o f G r e a t F a l l s on May 6th,
1975, i s v a l i d . "
A p p e l l a n t r a i s e s t h e s e i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w of t h a t judg-
ment by t h i s C o u r t :
1. Whether p r o p e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o t h i s C o u r t and n o t i c e
t o t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l p u r s u a n t t o Rule 38, Montana R u l e s o f
A p p e l l a t e C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , was g i v e n ?
2. Whether s e c t i o n s 94-8-110 and 94-8-110.1, R.C.M.
1947, a s amended, a r e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n view of r u l i n g s of
t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t on o b s c e n i t y ?
3. Whether a m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n h a s t h e power t o
e n a c t a v a l i d and b i n d i n g o r d i n a n c e r e l a t i n g t o o b s c e n i t y i n
e x c e s s of l i m i t s imposed on such o r d i n a n c e s by t h e s t a t e l e g i s -
lature?
A p p e l l a n t ' s argument c o n c e r n i n g compliance w i t h Rule 38,
M.R.App.Civ.P., i s of l i t t l e m e r i t . I n Grant v . Grant,
Mont . , 531 P.2d 1007, 32 St.Rep. 191, 193; C l o n t z v . C l o n t z ,
Mont . , 531 P.2d 1 6 9 , 32 St.Rep. 1 6 9 , 172; and G i l b e r t v .
Gilbert, Mont . , 533 P.2d 1079, 32 St.Rep. 1 6 3 , 165; t h i s
C o u r t d e c l i n e d t o r u l e on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l
b e c a u s e c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o t h i s C o u r t and n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e
A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l had n o t been g i v e n p u r s u a n t t o Rule 38. Requir-
i n g such n o t i c e t o t h e s t a t e ' s c h i e f l e g a l o f f i c e r i s t o e n a b l e
him t o a p p e a r i n d e f e n s e o f t h e c h a l l e n g e d l e g i s l a t i v e a c t s . In
t h i s m a t t e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o t h i s C o u r t and n o t i c e t o t h e A t t o r n e y
G e n e r a l w e r e accomplished on November 1 9 , 1975. Such n o t i c e
p r o v i d e d ample o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l t o p r e p a r e
f o r t h e h e a r i n g h e l d F e b r u a r y 4 , 1976. The s p i r i t of t h e r u l e
a p p e a r s s a t i s f i e d when such o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e p a r e f o r t h e con-
s t i t u t i o n a l challenge i s given. A c c o r d i n g l y , w e r e j e c t t h e em-
p h a s i s which a p p e l l a n t s e e k s t o p l a c e on t h e immediacy o f t h e
n o t i c e r e q u i r e d by Rule 38.
W e n e x t c o n s i d e r whether t h e s t a t u t e s i n q u e s t i o n , sec-
t i o n s 94-8-110 and 94-8-110.1, R.C.M. 1947, a r e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y
i n v a l i d when viewed i n t h e l i g h t of r e c e n t United S t a t e s Supreme
Court obscenity d e c i s i o n s . I n t h i s regard, the d i s t r i c t court
made t h e s e c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w :
"I. T h a t t h e most r e c e n t U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme
Court d e c i s i o n s rendered i n t h e a r e a of obscenity
p r o v i d e s f o r ' b a s i c g u i d e l i n e s ' t o be a p p l i e d i n
t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of ' o b s c e n e m a t e r i a l ' , t o - w i t :
( a ) whether t h e a v e r a g e p e r s o n a p p l y i n g contempo-
r a r y community s t a n d a r d s would f i n d t h e work,
t a k e n a s a whole, a p p e a l s t o t h e p r u r i e n t i n t e r e s t
* * *. M i l l e r v. C a l i f o r n i a , 413 U.S. 1 5 , 31,
37 L Ed 2d 419, 93 S.Ct. 2607.
"11. T h a t t h e 'community s t a n d a r d s ' e s t a b l i s h e d
by t h e Supreme C o u r t a r e l o c a l s t a n d a r d s a s opposed
t o statewide standards.
"111. T h a t t h e s a i d S t a t e law a t t e m p t s t o e s t a b l i s h
s t a t e w i d e s t a n d a r d s by i t s l i m i t a t i o n on t h e munici-
p a l i t i e s of t h e S t a t e of Montana from p a s s i n g more
r e s t r i c t i v e ordinances than t h e s a i d S t a t e l a w - and
is unconstitutional t o t h a t extent.
"IV. T h a t Ordinance No. 1862 of t h e C i t y of G r e a t
F a l l s a l l o w s t h e l o c a l community t o e s t a b l i s h i t s
s t a n d a r d of o b s c e n i t y f o r p e r s o n s of a l l a g e s -
and
i s t h e r e f o r e v a l i d . " (Emphasis added. )
With r e s p e c t t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n of l a w
I1 which i s b a s i c t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e i n t h i s m a t t e r ,
w e c a n f i n d no b a s i s i n t h e law on o b s c e n i t y a s a r t i c u l a t e d by
t h e Supreme C o u r t f o r s u c h a l i m i t i n g d e f i n i t i o n o f "community
s t a n d a r d s " a s t h a t a r r i v e d a t by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Further,
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s n o t r e l a t e d t h i s l i m i t i n g d e f i n i t i o n of
"community s t a n d a r d s " t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n which it c l a i m s i s
v i o l a t e d by t h e s t a t e s t a t u t e s .
Statewide standards f o r obscenity are c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y
permissible. M i l l e r v . C a l i f o r n i a , 413 U.S. 1 5 , 93 S.Ct. 2607,
37 L Ed 2d 419. The United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n Kaplan v .
C a l i f o r n i a , 413 U.S. 1 1 5 , 1 2 1 , 93 S.Ct. 2680, 37 L Ed 2d 492, 498,
stated:
" * * * t h e C o u r t t o d a y h o l d s t h a t t h e '"con-
temporary community s t a n d a r d s o f t h e s t a t e o f
C a l i f o r n i a " ' , a s opposed t o ' n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s , '
a r e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y a d e q u a t e t o e s t a b l i s h whether
a work i s obscene. * * * " (Emphasis a d d e d . )
I n United S t a t e s v . 1 2 200-Ft. Reels, 413 U.S. 123, 129,
93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L Ed 2d 500, 507, t h e Supreme C o u r t s a i d :
"As t h i s c a s e came t o u s on t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s
summary d i s m i s s a l o f t h e f o r f e i t u r e a c t i o n , no
d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e o b s c e n i t y of t h e m a t e r i a l s
i n v o l v e d h a s been made. W e have t o d a y a r r i v e d
a t standards f o r t e s t i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y
of s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n r e g u l a t i n g o b s c e n i t y . See
M i l l e r v . C a l i f o r n i a , 413 U.S. a t 23, 25, 37 L Ed 2d
a t 431. * * * " (Emphasis a d d e d . )
S u p p o r t f o r t h e broad d e f i n i t i o n o f "community s t a n d a r d s "
i s a l s o found i n a n a p p e a l of a r e c e n t f e d e r a l c r i m i n a l p r o s e -
cution f o r obscenity. I n United S t a t e s v . Danley, 523 F.2d 369,
370, D i s t r i c t Judge R u s s e l l E . Smith, s t a t e d :
" I n judging t h e community s t a n d a r d , t h e c o u r t ,
d e a l i n g a s it was w i t h laws r e g u l a t i n g t h e m a i l s
and i n t e r s t a t e commerce, p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e
community a s embracing more t h a n t h e S t a t e of
Oreqon. While under M i l l e r v . C a l i f o r n i a , s u p r a ,
t a k e r i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h United S t a t e s v . 1 2
200-Ft. R e e l s o f Super 8 MM. F i l m , 413 U.S. 123,
93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L Ed 2d 500 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , i t i s
permissible i n federal prosecution t o define t h e
s t a t e a s a community, i t i s c l e a r from Hamling
v. United S t a t e s , 418 U.S. 87, 94 S.Ct. 2887.
4 1 L Ed 2d 590 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , t h a t c b n s i d e r a t i o n ma; be
g i v e n t o s t a n d a r d s w i t h o u t t h e s t a t e . United
S t a t e s v . Harding, 507 F.2d 294 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) ,
c e r t . denied, U.S. , 95 S.Ct. 1437, 43
L Ed 2d 679 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ; United S t a t e s v . M i l l e r , 505
F.2d 1247 ( 9 t h C i r . 1974) ." (Emphasis added.)
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n No. I1 f i n d s no s u p p o r t
i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w on o b s c e n i t y . A judgment based on a n
erroneous conclusion of t h e l a w cannot stand.
W e n e x t c o n s i d e r t h e t h i r d i s s u e r a i s e d by t h i s a p p e a l - -
whether t h e m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n h a s t h e power t o r e g u l a t e
o b s c e n i t y n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g a l e g i s l a t i v e enactment which e x p r e s s l y
preempts t h e f i e l d . S i n c e t h e r e a r e no f i n d i n g s of f a c t n o r con-
c l u s i o n s of law s u g g e s t i n g t h a t a m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n h a s s u c h
a n i n h e r e n t power, t h a t power c a n n o t form a f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h i s
Granted though t h i s
judgment, o r s i m i l a r l y a n a p p e a l from i t .
we
judgment may s u g g e s t such i n h e r e n t powers,/view t h e judgment
based on t h e d i s t r i c t court's c o n c l u s i o n s of law. See: C r n c e v i c h
v. Georgetown R e c r e a t i o n C o r p o r a t i o n , Mont . , 541 P.2d
56, 32 S t - R e p . 963, 969. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u -
t i o n c o n t a i n s a new p r o v i s i o n on l o c a l government i n A r t i c l e X I ,
S e c t i o n 6 , which s t a t e s i n p a r t :
"Self-government powers. A l o c a l government
u n i t a d o p t i n q a self-qovernment c h a r t e r may
e x e r c i s e - any-power n o t p r o h i b i t e d by t h i s
c o n s t i t u t i o n , law, o r c h a r t e r . * * *"
(Emphasis added. )
The c i t y o r d i n a n c e h e r e which i s a d m i t t e d l y i n c o n f l i c t w i t h
t h e p r o h i b i t i o n of s e c t i o n 94-8-110(5), R.C.M. 1947, c a n n o t
s t a n d i n t h e f a c e of s u c h a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n .
The judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d .
/ /Chief J u s t i c e