Legal Opinion

Andrews v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided June 22, 1983No. 701-82PublishedCited by 90 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TEAGUE, Judge.

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

The Legislature has made certain activities in obscenity the subject of criminal liability, and, with the exception of private possession for personal use, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969), the Federal constitution does not immunize those properly convicted from the sanctions imposed. *373Bryers v. State, 480 S.W.2d 712, 716 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).

William Andrews, appellant, was accused by complaint and information with promoting obscenity by selling an obscene magazine, which was entitled “Swedish Erotica…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Stanley v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Oregon v. HassSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  5. Jacobellis v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964

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

3Cited by90 opinions

  1. Middleton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2003
  2. Vernon v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992
  3. Hathorn v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992
  4. Willis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1990
  5. Stone v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1996

85 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