{ "id": 2759316, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Price, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Price", "decision_date": "1972-11-08", "docket_number": "No. 72-14", "first_page": "158", "last_page": "161", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "8 Ill. App. 3d 158" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "98 Ill.App.2d 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2647401 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "150" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/98/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 Ill.App.2d 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1578987 ], "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "452" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/124/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill.2d 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2855687 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "90" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/40/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "383 U.S. 413", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6171859 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418" }, { "page": "6" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/383/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "354 U.S. 476", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6160660 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/354/0476-01" ] }, { "cite": "386 U.S. 767", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6183638 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0767-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ill.2d 410", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5392659 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "417" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/51/0410-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 458, "char_count": 6122, "ocr_confidence": 0.709, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0945679438842952e-07, "percentile": 0.7608561348557387 }, "sha256": "3feb9d14d0c24b350509b6dbe164c851f9c1d07c3bc8c534ecef8df65fe77d13", "simhash": "1:0f62eb12e40faad9", "word_count": 1001 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:39:49.359959+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. Jack Price, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE THOMAS J. MORAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant was convicted of obscenity under Section 11 \u2014 20(a)(1) of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, sec. 11 \u2014 20(a)(1)), and fined $1,000.\nOn June 29, 1971, the State filed a petition seeking a rule upon the defendant to show cause why the showing of the film, \u201cDaughters of Anomaly,\u201d did not constitute probable cause for the offense of obscenity. An attached affidavit alleged that defendant was the manager of the Park Art Cinema; that on June 25, 1971, the affiant viewed the film; that in his opinion, the movie was obscene as defined by statute.\nOn July 9, 1971, after finding probable cause, the trial court ordered the film impounded until a trial on the merits. Thereafter, a complaint and amendment thereto were filed charging defendant with the offense of obscenity.\nAfter viewing the film and hearing witnesses, the trial judge found the film \u201can out and out portrayal of sex,\u201d \u201chard core pornography,\u201d with dialogue used in \u201ca veiled attempt to give the film literary value\u201d and ruled the film to be obscene.\nDefendant raises several issues on appeal. Two issues are identical to those which defendant\u2019s counsel argued before the Illinois Supreme Court in the recent case of People v. Ridens, 51 Ill.2d 410 (1972): (1) that Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 18 L.Ed.2d 515, 87 S.Ct. 1414 (1967), expressed three elements necessary to the definition of obscenity in addition to those already set forth in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498, 77 S.Ct. 1304 (1957), and (2) that Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, sec. 11 \u2014 20 is unconstitutional. The Illinois Supreme Court found no validity to these arguments and we adhere to their disposition.\nAt trial, the State presented four witnesses and introduced the film into evidence. The prosecution then rested its case-in-chief. Thereupon, defendant presented a motion for a directed judgment alleging, in part, that the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case because none of the witnesses testified that the film statisfied the three elements necessary for an obscenity conviction as set forth in A Book v. Attorney General, 383 U.S. 413, 418, 16 L.Ed.2d 1, 6, 86 S.Ct. 975 (1966). Those elements are, \u201c(a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value.\u201d After the luncheon recess, the prosecutor made a motion for leave to reopen the State\u2019s case-in-chief for the purpose of presenting testimony that the film violated the tripartite test. The motion was granted and the defendant now asserts that this was error.\nIt is within the trial court\u2019s discretion to permit a case to be reopened in order to receive additional evidence. Such decision will not be upset unless there has been an abuse of that discretion. (People v. Cross, 40 Ill.2d 85, 90 (1968); People v. Rose, 124 Ill.App.2d 447, 452 (1970).) Defendant contends that this rule applies only in cases wherein the prosecutor has inadvertently omitted certain mere formalities of proof. (See, People v. Cross, supra.) Contrary to this contention, the prosecution has been allowed to reopen its case not only for the purpose of proving formalities but also to establish the very facts essential for a conviction. (In People v. Parker, 98 Ill.App.2d 146, 150 (1968), the State was allowed to reopen its case in order to prove the value of stolen merchandise in a theft prosecution.)\nEven without the additional testimony, the State had presented a prima facie case. In People v. Ridens, supra, at page 415-416, the Court held that the State met its burden of proof by introducing the allegedly obscene materials into evidence.\nThis court has viewed \u201cDaughters of Anomaly\u201d and must consider it in light of the Ridens decision. There, the Court held that certain magazines were obscene as a matter of law and described the magazines, saying:\n\u201c* * * The color photographs, of which these magazines are almost exclusively composed, portray nude males and females, engaged in seductive embraces, posed with their legs spread so as to focus attention on their genitals. Although none of the models portrayed is actually engaged in sexual activity, it is clear from some sequences of photographs that sexual activity is suggested and imminent * * *.\u2019\u2019 (51 Ill.2d 410, 417)\nThere is no doubt that the movie before us much more explicitly portrays sexual acts than the magazines in Ridens. There, sexual activity was suggested and imminent, while the instant film graphically shows actors engaged in sexual intercourse, masturbation, lesbianism, fellatio and cunnilingus.\nThe film is not distinguishable from the magazines reviewed in Ridens on the basis that it contains the additional elements of dialogue and narrative, a plot, theme or message. We agree with the trial judge\u2019s finding that the narrative frequently has little or no relation to that which the viewer observes; that it is inane and merely a ploy to camouflage the explicit sexuality of the film.\nBased upon Ridens, we find the film obscene as a matter of law. So finding, we need not reach the other alleged errors raised by the defendant, and affirm the judgment of the lower comt.\nJudgment affirmed.\nSEIDENFELD, P. J., and ABRAHAMSON, J., concur.\nCounsel, during oral argument, candidly admitted that Ridens summarily disposed of these issues in a manner adverse to defendant\u2019s interest.\nIn oral argument, defense counsel, who viewed the Ridens magazines, conceded that \u201cthose publications were less explicit in their sexual material and in their candor.\u201d", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE THOMAS J. MORAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Donald M. Reno, Jr., of Champaign, and Alan G. Sumberg, of Rockford, for appellant.", "Philip G. Reinhard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford, (James W. Jerz, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Price, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 72-14;\nSecond District \u2014\nNovember 8, 1972.\nDonald M. Reno, Jr., of Champaign, and Alan G. Sumberg, of Rockford, for appellant.\nPhilip G. Reinhard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford, (James W. Jerz, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0158-01", "first_page_order": 180, "last_page_order": 183 }