{
  "id": 2621231,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Will, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Will",
  "decision_date": "1975-07-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 11963",
  "first_page": "35",
  "last_page": "37",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 3d 35"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "378 U.S. 184",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6166005
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/378/0184-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.E.2d 629",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill.App.3d 1081",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2782200
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/26/1081-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.E.2d 400",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Ill.2d 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2909230
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/49/0435-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "413 U.S. 49",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11338826
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/413/0049-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "413 U.S. 15",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11338628
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/413/0015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 S.Ct. 2000",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 L.Ed.2d 483",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 N.E.2d 264",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 Ill.2d 362",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2958695
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/59/0362-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 S.Ct. 3046",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 L.Ed.2d 1030",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "413 U.S. 912",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.E.2d 691",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill.2d 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5392659
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/51/0410-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 358,
    "char_count": 4848,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.757,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.113725938952548e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3809845670539093
    },
    "sha256": "c044c86756e86d05aae675e9e169b0afb93e4314931e309b84d7ceea44adc2d3",
    "simhash": "1:28ce725736653a4b",
    "word_count": 805
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:28.126609+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Will, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant was convicted by jury verdict upon a charge of delivering an obscene magazine in violation of section 11 \u2014 20(a) (1) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 11 \u2014 20 (a)(1)). He appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed \u2014 a fine of $500 and incarceration for 90 days.\nAfter submission of the case, defendant being upon bond pending appeal, counsel agreed that further review be stayed pending the disposition of People v. Ridens, 51 Ill.2d 410, 282 N.E.2d 691, following remand from the United States Supreme Court (413 U.S. 912, 37 L.Ed.2d 1030, 93 S.Ct. 3046.) The Illinois statute concerned was held to be constitutional in People v. Ridens, 59 Ill.2d 362, 321 N.E.2d 264, and certiorari was denied on May 27, 1975 (-U.S.-, 44 L.Ed.2d 483, 95 S.Ct. 2000).\nDefendant\u2019s supplemental brief, filed by leave of court, concedes that most issues raised initially have been resolved by the opinions in People v. Ridens, 59 Ill.2d 362, 321 N.E.2d 264; Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 37 L.Ed.2d 419, 93 S.Ct. 2607 and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 37 L.Ed.2d 446, 93 S.Ct. 2628.\nDefendant raises the issue of error in the instruction given at the request of the prosecution:\n\u201cA thing is obscene if, considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to the prurient interest, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, and if it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in its description or representation of such matters, and it is utterly without redeeming social value, or it has been commercially exploited for the exclusive sake of prurient appeal. Obscenity is judged with reference to ordinary adults.\u201d\nIn People v. Ridens, 59 Ill.2d 362, 321 N.E.2d 264, the court construed the Illinois statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 11 \u2014 20) as incorporating the standard of Miller v. California, which requires the. trier of fact to determine \u201cwhether \u2018the average person applying contemporary community standards\u2019 would find that the work taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.\u201d\nIt is to be observed that the challenged instruction makes no reference to \u201ccommunity standards\u201d or any form thereof, but would permit jurors to indulge personal feelings or opinions.\nIn People v. Butler, 49 Ill.2d 435, 275 N.E.2d 400, the court determined that the statute at issue contemplates a statewide scope as the measure of the \u201ccontemporary community standard.\u201d In that case, as here, no given instruction defined the extent of the \u201ccommunity\u201d by which the standard is to be measured and the court determined that the record showed that the jury might conclude that it could adopt a \u201ccommunity\u201d lesser than statewide. The conviction was reversed and remanded.\nIn People v. Watson, 26 Ill.App.3d 1081, 325 N.E.2d 629, this court determined that an instruction identical to that concerned here must be reversed as error for the failure to instruct the jury that the standard must be that of a statewide community, for such failure would permit the jury to \u201c* * * impose any type of standard they desire.\u201d\nThe instruction is further criticized for incorporating as a part of the definition of obscenity tire phrase, \u201cor it has been commercially exploited for the exclusive sake of the prurient appeal.\u201d While section 11 \u2014 20(c) of the Criminal Code provides that such \u201ccommercial exploitation\u201d may be probative evidence, it is not properly a part of the definition of obscenity within either the meaning of the term as stated in People v. Ridens, or in the statute itself. It seems a truism that if an article is not obscene within the proper definition, its use alone would not make such article obscene.\nHaving found reversible error, it is unnecessary for this court \u201cto make an independent constitutional judgment of the facts of the case as to whether the material is constitutionally protected\u201d as required in People v. Ridens, 59 Ill.2d 362, 321 N.E.2d 264; Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 12 L.Ed.2d 793, 84 S.Ct. 1676.\nDefendant argues error in the denial of a motion to suppress as evidence certain items seized under a search warrant. No item so seized was introduced into evidence, and review of such argument has no relevance to the merits of the conviction.\nFor the error in instruction, the judgment is reversed and remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nSIMKINS, P. J., and SMITH, J. concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Donald M. Reno, Jr., of Reno, O\u2019Byrne & Kepley, of Champaign (Lawrence W. Blickhan, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Robert J. Bier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Quincy (G. Michael Prall, of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Will, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 11963;\nFourth District\nJuly 10, 1975.\nDonald M. Reno, Jr., of Reno, O\u2019Byrne & Kepley, of Champaign (Lawrence W. Blickhan, of counsel), for appellant.\nRobert J. Bier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Quincy (G. Michael Prall, of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0035-01",
  "first_page_order": 61,
  "last_page_order": 63
}