Legal Opinion

People v. Freeman

California Supreme Court

Decided August 25, 1988No. S000070PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KAUFMAN, J.

Defendant Harold Freeman hired and paid actors to perform in a nonobscene commercial film which portrayed sexually explicit acts. On that account he was charged with and convicted of five counts of pandering—procurement of persons “for the purpose of prostitution”—under Penal Code section 266L He appealed contending his conduct did not constitute the crime of pandering. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction.

This court granted review because of First Amendment concerns and the statewide significance of the issues. Because of the language of the statutes…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  3. United States Ex Rel. Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
  4. People v. DavenportCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  5. People v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Kopp v. Fair Political Practices CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Mitchell v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Kucharek v. HanawayCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
  4. Richardson v. Superior Court of Tulare CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Kucharek v. HanawayCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API