People v. Heller, 39 N.Y.2d 308 (1976)

In obscenity cases, the relevant ‘community standard’ for determining whether material appeals to prurient interest or is patently offensive need not be defined as a statewide standard, and reading the statutory definition of obscenity to the grand jury is generally sufficient unless it impairs the indictment’s integrity and prejudices the defendant.

Summary

This case addresses the appropriate ‘community standard’ for assessing obscenity under New York law. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the grand jury instructions were adequate despite not explicitly defining the ‘community.’ The court reasoned that the statutory definition provided sufficient guidance, and the grand jury’s function is to determine if a prima facie case exists, not to establish guilt or innocence. A concurring opinion argued against prematurely establishing a statewide standard, suggesting the legislature should define ‘community.’

Facts

The defendant was indicted for obscenity-related offenses. The specific facts concerning the allegedly obscene material are not detailed in this excerpt, but the legal issue centered on the instructions given to the grand jury regarding the definition of obscenity, particularly the ‘community standards’ component.

Procedural History

The case reached the New York Court of Appeals after a lower court ruling (presumably concerning the validity of the indictment) was appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the grand jury instructions regarding the definition of obscenity were insufficient because they did not explicitly define the relevant ‘community’ whose standards should be applied.

2. Whether a statewide standard must be applied when considering what constitutes the relevant community.

Holding

1. No, because reading the statutory definition to the grand jury is normally sufficient unless failure to do more impaired the integrity of the indictment and created a possibility of prejudice to defendant.

2. The court did not definitively rule on whether the standard to be applied is State-wide.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that reading the statutory definition of obscenity to the grand jury is generally sufficient. The grand jury’s role is to determine whether a prima facie case exists, not to determine guilt or innocence. The court emphasized that the standard is a means of testing the appeal of the material involved to prurient interest in sex. The court concluded that using a community standard could not be said to prejudice the defendant. The concurring opinion argued that the Legislature did not include the word ‘statewide’ in the statutory definition of ‘obscene’ and that the issue of statewide standards should be left to the legislature.

Judge Meyer, in concurrence, stated, “Whether the standard to be applied is State-wide is not an issue necessary to be determined in this case… though the statutory definition of ‘obscene’ set forth in subdivision 1 of section 235.00 of the Penal Law… the Legislature did not include the word ‘statewide’ in that definition.” He further noted the importance of the Legislature’s role following *Miller v. California*, stating that “it is within the province of the Legislature to determine whether the less stringent test of obscenity laid down in that case should now become the ultimate formula to be applied in New York.”