Kuhns

As a result of a certification, hereinafter detailed, the defendants, despite the establishment of the constitutionality of the statutes under which they were convicted (Pen. Code, § 311 and § 311.2, subd. (a) ; see Bloom v. Municipal Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 71 [127 Cal.Rptr. 317, 545 P.2d 229 ]), seek to press alleged errors to reverse their convictions. We hold that there is no merit to their claims of error in the following fields: (1) the manner in which the jurors who convicted them were selected; (2) the contention that the provisions of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of section 311, regarding evidence to establish that the matter is utterly without redeeming social importance, are unconstitutional and were improperly made the subject of an instruction, (3) alleged lack of proof and misdirection of the jury on the issue of scienter, (4) alleged discrimination, which denies both the owner and the clerk equal protection of the law, (5) insufficiency of the evidence to establish that the material involved was obscene. We do find that there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant clerk of two of the three charges of which he was found guilty.

History of the…