Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Hoelscher

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 10, 1972No. Nos. 43238, 43239, 43241, 43242, 43243Published

1DissentOtis, Justice

With respect to the Hoelscher conviction, all that is depicted is a nude couple engaged in sexual foreplay. No intercourse or perversion is portrayed. The film may be obscene but in my opinion it is not hard-core pornography.

The pictures involved in the Carlson prosecutions, on the other hand, are unquestionably hard-core pornography. Nevertheless, *445for the reasons set forth in my dissent in State v. Lebewitz, 294 Minn. 424, 202 N. W. 2d 648 (1972), I am persuaded that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767, 87 S. Ct. 1414, 18 L. ed. 2d 515 (1967),…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Redrup v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. State v. LebewitzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API