State v. Hunt

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Summers

    692 S.W.2d 439 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985)   Cited 24 times
    Concluding that expert testimony was not required to prove prurient appeal of a film depicting various forms of sadomasochistic conduct

    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.

  2. State v. Pendergrass

    795 S.W.2d 150 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)   Cited 28 times
    Upholding constitutionality of prior obscenity law

    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).

  3. State v. Martin

    719 S.W.2d 522 (Tenn. 1986)   Cited 6 times
    Evaluating a statute regulating the display of adult literature and movies generally and then with regard to the defendant's particular facts

    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.

  4. State v. Electroplating, Inc.

    990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998)   Cited 373 times
    Holding that because the decision to grant judicial diversion is within the sound discretion of the trial court, this court "may not revisit the issue if the record contains any substantial evidence supporting the trial court's decision"

    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.

  5. State v. Rollins

    785 S.W.2d 129 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

    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).

  6. State v. Dodson

    780 S.W.2d 778 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989)   Cited 160 times
    Holding failure to timely file motion for a new trial jurisdictionally bars certain review

    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.