Source or Prior Law:

21-1102, 21-1102a, 21-1102d, 21-1105, 21-1115.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Comparison to prior obscenity statute in standards for determining obscenity, Edwin P. Carpenter, 10 W.L.J. 163, 174, 175 (1970).

"Pornography and Sane Legal Control," M. C. Slough, 40 J.B.A.K. 25, 85 (1971).

Discussed in comparison to prior obscenity statute and U.S. supreme court decisions on standards for determining obscenity, Michael J. Lichty, 19 K.L.R. 789, 790, 791, 792 (1971).

"Miller v. California: An Attempt To Control Obscenity," M. C. Slough, 42 J.B.A.K. 317, 322, 372 (1973).

"The Obscenity Law's Application in Kansas: Issues and Procedures," Stan N. Wilkins, 12 W.L.J. 185, 186, 187, 191, 195, 196, 199, 200 (1973).

"The Effect of Recent Obscenity Cases," Bernis G. Terry, 13 W.L.J. 26, 28, 29, 31 (1974).

"Constitutional Law: Obscenity Regulation in Kansas—A New Standard," Robert Maxwell, 16 W.L.J. 204-208 (1976).

"Judges Read Dirty Books," J. Richard Foth, 47 J.B.A.K. 191, 199 (1978).

"The Jury's Role in Criminal Obscenity—A Closer Look," Larry G. Rapp, 28 K.L.R. 111, 119 (1979).

"There's (Almost) No Place Like Home: Kansas Remains In the Minority on Protecting Animals From Cruelty," Kara Gerwin, 15 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, No. 1, 125 (2005).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Promoting obscenity; programming on cable television stations. 79-220.

Persons prohibited from employment in boarding homes for children or family day care homes; effect of certain misdemeanor convictions. 85-154.

Sale of magazines containing advertisements for obscene materials or devices. 87-6.

No requirement to revoke or suspend teacher's license upon probable cause finding of Missouri division of family services. 2003-33.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Action by adult bookstore to have statute declared unconstitutional; action dismissed. Cushing v. Docking, 360 F. Supp. 578, 579.

2. Definition of obscene material susceptible of judicial construction; construed to be consistent with guidelines set by U.S. Supreme Court. State v. Motion Picture Entitled "The Bet", 219 Kan. 64, 66, 69, 71, 78, 547 P.2d 760.

3. Crimes in which prior conviction is a necessary element distinguished from crimes considered in establishing penalties. State v. Loudermilk, 221 Kan. 157, 160, 557 P.2d 1229.

4. Definition of "obscene" found unconstitutionally overbroad. State v. Allen & Rosebaugh, 1 Kan. App. 2d 32, 33, 35, 562 P.2d 445.

5. Conduct of state officials in movie theater raids constituted an impermissible prior restraint of 1st Amendment rights. Maguin v. Miller, 433 F. Supp. 223, 230.

6. Words "other similar justification" in subsection (3) vague and indefinite; surplusage; remainder of section constitutional. State v. Next Door Cinema Corp., 225 Kan. 112, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119, 587 P.2d 326.

7. Subsection (2)(a) construed; in omitting phrase "actual or simulated" does not permit representations of actual ultimate sexual acts; "taken as a whole" does not infer a 51% time test or other arithmetic. State v. Starr Enterprises, Inc., 226 Kan. 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 597 P.2d 1098.

8. "Prurient interest" means an unwholesome or unhealthy sexual interest, not mere sexual desire. State v. Great American Theatre, 227 Kan. 633, 634, 608 P.2d 951.

9. Test of "willful conduct" discussed; civil penalties case does not require more stringent standard than criminal case. State ex rel. Murray v. Palmgren, 231 Kan. 524, 536, 646 P.2d 1091 (1982).

10. Statute does not violate First and 14th Amendments by exclusion of movie projectionists, in defining "obscene," nor in exercising police power. State v. Baker, 11 Kan. App. 2d 4, 711 P.2d 759 (1985).

11. Defendant's challenge to K.S.A. 21-4301(1), (2) and (3)(c) as unconstitutional prohibition of 14th Amendment liberty interest to privacy in therapeutic situations upheld. State v. Hughes, 246 Kan. 607, 617, 792 P.2d 1023 (1990).