statewide community standard in Illinois

1986Finally, we note, as we did in People v. Pope (1985), 138 Ill.

1986The determination of what the statewide community standard is not a question of law for a court to set, but a question of fact for a jury to decide (cf. People v. Pope (1985), 138 Ill.

2001The Nelson court went on to explain, “This raises the great danger that the jurors may have applied a personal standard rather than a statewide community standard.” 88 Ill.

2001Essentially the result of refusing the proffered evidence left the jurors with no way of knowing what the State standard might be.” 88 Ill.

1986We note this same instruction was given to the juries in the cases People v. Sequoia Books, Inc. (1986), 145 Ill.

1982App. 3d 567,575-76 , rev’d on other grounds (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 296 .) The record is clear that the court reviewed each of the publications which it declared obscene, and that in making its determination, the guidelines announced in Miller and the statewide community standard mandated in People v. Butler were applied.

1982(Miller v. California (1973), 413 U.S. 15 , 37 L.

1982(Miller v. California (1973), 413 U.S. 15 , 37 L.

1980(People v. Ridens (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 410, 415-16 , vac. & rem. (1973), 413 U.S. 912 , 37 L.

1978(People v. Ridens (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 362 , 321 N.E.2d 264 .) It is our view that Ridens mandates application of a statewide community standard to determine obscenity under a local ordinance as well as under the State obscenity statute.

1978(People v. Ridens (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 362 , 321 N.E.2d 264 .) It is our view that Ridens mandates application of a statewide community standard to determine obscenity under a local ordinance as well as under the State obscenity statute.

1978Specifically, section (b)(6) provides: ‘Community Standards’: In determining ‘Contemporary Community Standards’ a juror may utilize the standards of the community or vicinage from which he comes, but the Court, in its discretion, may admit evidence of standards existing outside of such community or vicinage.” The United States Supreme Court approved use of such a local community standard in Hamling v. United States (1974), 418 U.S. 87 , 41 L.

1978Specifically, section (b)(6) provides: ‘Community Standards’: In determining ‘Contemporary Community Standards’ a juror may utilize the standards of the community or vicinage from which he comes, but the Court, in its discretion, may admit evidence of standards existing outside of such community or vicinage.” The United States Supreme Court approved use of such a local community standard in Hamling v. United States (1974), 418 U.S. 87 , 41 L.

1976Citing People v. Butler, 49 Ill. 2d 435 , 275 N.E.2d 400 (1971), if is argued that in determining whether the material goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in its description or representation of sexual matters, the jury should have been told that in determining “contemporary community standards” of customary candor, they were not entitled to apply city-wide or county-wide or central Illinois standards, as the State intimated in its arguments, but must apply a statewide community standard.

1976Citing People v. Butler, 49 Ill. 2d 435 , 275 N.E.2d 400 (1971), if is argued that in determining whether the material goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in its description or representation of sexual matters, the jury should have been told that in determining “contemporary community standards” of customary candor, they were not entitled to apply city-wide or county-wide or central Illinois standards, as the State intimated in its arguments, but must apply a statewide community standard.