In the next issue the appellants contend that the exemptions under TCA § 39-6-1117 are overbroad and are improper classifications, violating the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. On two prior occasions this Court has specifically held that the provisions of the exemption section are not overbroad and not violative of either the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. State v. Davis, 654 S.W.2d 688, 692 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1983), State v. Hunt, 660 S.W.2d 513, 517-518 (Tenn.Cr. App. 1983). This issue has no merit.
Based upon our review of the matter hereinabove set forth, and applying the community standards of the State of Tennessee, we conclude that the magazines and video tapes clearly (a) appeal to a shameful or morbid interest in sex, (b) depict sexual conduct in a manner which substantially exceeds the customary limits of candor, and (c) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. See State v. Hunt, 660 S.W.2d 513, 519-520 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983); State v. Davis, 654 S.W.2d 688, 695 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983).
Crim. App.), permission to appeal denied (Tenn. 1985); State v. Hunt, 660 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn. Crim. App.), permission to appeal denied (Tenn. 1983); State v. Davis, 654 S.W.2d 688 (Tenn.
As the state notes in its brief, prosecutions against corporations and individuals as co-defendants for the same criminal acts, while rare, are not unknown in Tennessee.See, e.g., State v. Superior Oil, Inc., et al., 875 S.W.2d 658 (Tenn. 1994) (violations of the Water Quality Control Act); State v. Lucy M. Hunt and Guess What, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983) (possessing obscene material with the intent to distribute); State v. Shearon Davis and Guess What, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 688 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983) (unlawful distribution of obscene material). The defendant also argues that a jury would be more inclined to convict the defendant when it learned of additional serious allegations against the corporation.
Furthermore, with reliance on Taylor and Leech, this Court has refused to interpret Article I, Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution as forbidding any regulation of obscenity. State v. Hunt, 660 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983); see also, State v. Frazier, 683 S.W.2d 346 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984).
Crim. App. 1982). See State v. Hunt, 660 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983); State v. Todd, 631 S.W.2d 464 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981); State v. Simerly, 612 S.W.2d 196 (Tenn.