180 Ind. App. 540 - Riley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The first issue we consider is whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague. * * * "* * * "We note that the Indiana statute follows the guidelines set out by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. California, [ supra ], almost word for word. The guidelines set the permissible scope of state regulation of obscene material weighed against First Amendment considerations. Using the guidelines, as found in IC 35-30-10.1-1(c), and specifically defined sexual conduct, such as found in IC 35-30-10.1-1(d), the Supreme Court stated, `[w]e are satisfied that these specific prerequisites will provide fair notice to a dealer in such materials that his public and commercial activities may bring prosecution.' Miller, supra, [ 413 U.S. at 27 , 93 S.Ct. at 2616-17 ]. Yet Riley contends that the language found in the statute and Miller `enhances' the vagueness problem and that the statute is not sufficiently certain to show what the legislature intended to prohibit. " The standard of specificity in Indiana is that a statute will not be found unconstitutionally vague if individuals of ordinary intelligence would comprehend it to adequately inform them of the conduct to be proscribed. Sumpter v. State, [ 261 Ind. 471 , 306 N.E.2d 95 (1974), cert. den. 425 U.S. 952 , 96 S.Ct. 1727 , 48 L.Ed.2d 196 (1976)]; Hunter v. State, [ 172 Ind. App. 397 , 360 N.E.2d 588 , cert. den. 434 U.S. 906 , 98 S.Ct. 306 , 54 L.Ed.2d 193 (1977)]. "And it has been stated in Roth v. United States, [ supra ]: "”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 78 Or. App. 392 - State v. Henry

2. “`Many decisions have recognized that these terms of obscenity statutes are not precise. This Court, however, has consistently held that lack of precision is not itself offensive to the requirements of due process.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 78 Or. App. 392 - State v. Henry

3. “We determine that the statutes are sufficiently clear as to give notice of the conduct proscribed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 78 Or. App. 392 - State v. Henry