Dick. In. Ass.

Monday, June 3, 2013

I mean "Ass Masters" could be about ANYTHING

The Court of Appeals in this cause, as did the opinions of Stonelake v. State, 638 S.W.2d 619 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st], 1982), and Taylor v. State, 625 S.W.2d 839 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1982) (No Petition for Discretionary Review), placed great emphasis upon the title of the obscene material, in this instance, “3-Way Cum.” The court in this cause stated the following: “In our case, the title of the magazine described no particular type of sodomy, nor did the information limit or describe the type of sodomy depicted in the magazine. Therefore, appellant's motion to quash should have been granted.” [Emphasis Added]. In Stonelake, supra, however, the title of the film in that cause was “Two-Way Butt Fuck.” The court in this cause stated the following: “In our case, the title of the magazine described no particular type of sodomy, nor did the information limit or describe the type of sodomy depicted in the magazine. Therefore, appellant's motion to quash should have been granted.” [Emphasis Added]. In Stonelake, supra, however, the title of the film in that cause was “Two-Way Butt Fuck.” In Stonelake, the Court of Appeals, using Taylor v. State, supra, as its authority, stated the following as its reasons for rejecting the contention that the information was subject to the motion to quash: “Since the name of the film [“Two-Way Butt Fuck”] described one particular form of sodomy, the criminal information adequately informed the defendant of the allegedly obscene acts depicted in the film.” In Taylor, the title of the magazine in that cause was “Ass Masters.”

Barnhart v. State, 648 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)