WPC ZHSpj `8#qj"9;i#;uaq 42+2kU24T m&:M$fiѭeO(hj'n1IzaR=N7fNm"Q@ѵ9{(PK~ 9cZ ɵE8լ /HsT ͗Ah_eQ/(]1&LH;˽Ʃ%Du3G> Gs5PtB6dN05eNmq6ڠb],k7 nN  0( U :+ we 4 1 0 0DU:-3-U:QfU:n U:f Bhhhhhhhh D3 0D AOKK 0D D/U B<6X9`(CourierX  ##Xd#    t    \RA'Legal\3|x<6X9`(CourierXx6X@`7X@($,  AZ"Arial Regular{EDDD{EDDEUleDEӀh&  $$XXXX `   3    Infact,whenthe"community"wasdefinedastheStateofTennessee, `  thestatutewaschallengedbecauseitdidnotlimitthedefinitiontothejudicialdistrictinwhichthecrimewasallegedtohaveoccurred.SeeStatev.Frazier, @  683S.W.2d346(Tenn.Crim.App.1984).(I(2($  !  XXXX `   0  (#$  0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular # $$XXXX `   1    Itisimportanttonotethatnotallmaterialsofasexualnatureare `  obscene.Whilesomesexuallyorientedmattermaybelawfullydistributedandpossessedforthepurposeofdistribution,thatwhichisobsceneisnotconstitutionallyprotectedandmaybethesubjectofstatecriminalproscriptions.SeegenerallyLeechv.AmericanBooksellersAss'n,582S.W.2d738(Tenn.   1979).  $$XXXX `   2    Becausewefindtheevidenceinsufficientastobothdefendants,itisnot `  necessarytoinquirewhetherprosecutionofboththeindividualdefendantandhissoleproprietorshipviolatedconstitutionalprohibitionsagainstdoublejeopardy.Furthermore,thisissuewasnotraisedbythedefendants. # $$X+XXX `   1    Itisimportanttonotethatnotallmaterialsofasexualnatureare `  obscene.Whilesomesexuallyorientedmattermaybelawfullydistributedandpossessedforthepurposeofdistribution,thatwhichisobsceneisnotconstitutionallyprotectedandmaybethesubjectofstatecriminalproscriptions.SeegenerallyLeechv.AmericanBooksellersAss'n,582S.W.2d738(Tenn.   1979).,cAZ"Arial Regular  $$XXXX `   2    Becausewefindtheevidenceinsufficientastobothdefendants,itisnot `  necessarytoinquirewhetherprosecutionofboththeindividualdefendantandhissoleproprietorshipviolatedconstitutionalprohibitionsagainstdoublejeopardy.Furthermore,thisissuewasnotraisedbythedefendants. \\RA' Legal\,cAZ"Arial Regular XXXXkXX   Ad FILED k   August12,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.M  AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular \\RA' Legal\ d""""'dxd(3$  !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd  !  `   TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T X"XXXr*<,(j 8 `@Ef  tt0"H` rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  ̀@::'ATKNOXVILLE 0  @dd%MAY1999SESSION    STATEOFTENNESSEE, h     ) p   `     h     ) p  `   `  Appellee, h     ) p C.C.A.No.03C019810CR00371 P   `     h     )vs. `     h     ) p HamiltonCounty x  0   `     h     ) JERRYC.PENDERGRASS    ) p Hon.DouglasA.Meyer,Judge  p and  `     h     ) `  BROADSTREETVIDEO, h     )  P abusinessentity,   h     ) p (PossessionofObsceneMatterwith @  `     h     ) p IntenttoDistribute,Distributionof 0  `  Appellants. h     ) p ObsceneMatter) x      `    FORTHEAPPELLANT h      p FORTHEAPPELLEE:  p JERRYC.PENDERGRASS:   !`  `     h      p JOHNKNOXWALKUP  "P  H.LOUISSIRKIN    h      p AttorneyGeneral&Reporter #@ AttorneyatLaw105W.FourthSt.,Ste.920     p ELLENH.POLLACK  %  Cincinnati,OH45202 h      p Asst.AttorneyGeneral p&   `     h      p 425FifthAve.North `'   JOHNE.HERBISON h      p 2dFloor,CordellHullBldg. P(! AttorneyatLaw   h      p Nashville,TN372430493 @)" 2016EighthAve.S. h      p      0* # Nashville,TN37204 h      p VICTORS.JOHNSON,III  +!$  `     h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral ,"%  FORTHEAPPELLANT -#& BROADSTREETVIDEO: h      p BARRYSTEELEMAN -$'  `     h      p Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral .%(  ARVINH.REINGOLD h      p 600MarketSt.,CourtsBldg. /p&) AttorneyatLaw   h      p Chattanooga,TN37402 0`'* 1010MarketSt.Chattanooga,TN37402OPINIONFILED:________________ REVERSED&DISMISSED P7-1 JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGE  09/3 7RQXXdXXd7    TR[A'Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  7 " XXdXXd7†† @qq* OPINION  `   `  Thedefendants,JerryC.PendergrassandBroadStreetVideo,wereconvictedofobscenityrelatedcrimesattheconclusionofajurytrialintheHamiltonCountyCriminalCourt.Bothdefendantswereconvictedofdistributionofobscenematter,aClassAmisdemeanor.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3917902(a),(c)(1)  (1997).Pendergrasswasalsoconvictedofpossessionwithintenttodistributeobscenematter,aClassAmisdemeanor.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3917902(a), @  (c)(1)(1997).Pendergrassreceivedanelevenmonth,29daysentence,75percentofwhichwastobeservedinthecountyworkhouse.BroadStreetVideowasfined$31,000.Inthisdirectappeal,thedefendantsraisenumerousissuesforourconsideration: ` 1.0 Whetherproofofthemensreaisconstitutionallysufficienttosupport  eachconviction.  (# (#  ` 2.0 Whetherprosecutorialmisconductinclosingargumentwarrantsa  newtrial.  (# (#  ` 3.0 Whetherthetrialcourtproperlyinstructedthejury.!` (# (#  ` 4.0 Whetherthecumulativeeffectofallegedprosecutorialmisconduct "P andimproperinstructionsviolatedthedefendants'dueprocessguarantees.  (# (#  ` 5.0 WhetherCodesection3917902isunconstitutionaleitheronitsface %  orasapplied.  (# (# Havingreviewedtherecordandthebriefsoftheparties,heardoralarguments,andstudiedtheapplicablelaw,wefindtheevidenceinsufficienttosupporttheconvictions.Accordingly,wereversetheconvictionsanddismisstheprosecution. `  OnJanuary30,1996anofficerwiththeChattanoogaPoliceDepartmentwentintoabusinessestablishmentat2025BroadStreet.Theofficerlookedaroundthestorefor30to45minutesandobservedvarioustypesofmerchandiseofasexualnature,including"sextoys"andsexuallyorientedvideotapes.Thevideotapesweregroupedtogetherbythetypesofsexactsdepicted.Theofficerselectedavideoentitled"HalfandHalf"andtookittotheclerkbehindthefrontdesk.Theclerkrangupthepurchase;theofficertendered$53.82 ;15  andleftthestore.Theonlyconversationtheofficerhadwiththeclerkpertainedtothepurchasepriceandpossiblytotheclerkcheckingtheofficer'sidentificationuponenteringthestore. `  Thereafter,theofficerviewedthevideotapeinfurtheranceofhisinvestigation,andobscenitychargeswereinitiatedagainstthedefendants. `  Attrial,thestatepresentedthetestimonyoftheofficerregardinghisobservationsandpurchaseonJanuary30,1996.Inadditiontoevidenceofthefactsdescribedabove,theofficertestifiedthathedidnotseethedefendantPendergrassatBroadStreetVideo.Thestatealsopresentedevidenceviastipulationofthepartiesthat(1)theHamiltonCountyRegisterofDeedswouldtestifythatJerryC.Pendergrassof2437RossvilleBoulevard,Chattanooga,Tennessee,heldthedeedtothepropertyat2025BroadStreet,(2)theChattanoogacitytreasurerwouldtestifythat(a)anapplicationforbusinesstaxlicense45480wasfiledinthenameVideoandMorebyJerryC.PendergrassonJune9,1993,(b)thenameofthebusinesswaschangedfromVideoandMoretoBroadStreetVideo,(c)BroadStreetVideoheldbusinesslicense45480inthenameJerryC.PendergrassfromApril1,1995toMarch31,1996,and(3)theJerryC.PendergrassreferencedinthedocumentssupportingtheprecedingstipulationswasthesameJerryC.Pendergrassontrial.Thestateofferedphotographsofthebuildingat2025BroadStreet,whichdepicttwoneonsignsreading"AdultBookstore"alongthefrontandonesideofthebuildingandtwoadditionalneonsignsinthetwofrontwindowsreading"AdultBooksVideosToys."Thestatealsoofferedthevideotape"HalfandHalf"anditsprintedcardboardcontainer,andthetapewasviewedinitsentiretybythejury.  :04  `  Thedefensepresentednoevidence.@ I.SufficiencyoftheEvidence     `  Thefirstissuepresentedonappeal,andtheonewhichisdispositiveofthecase,iswhethertheevidencethatthedefendantsknowinglycommittedthecrimesissufficienttosustaintheirconvictions. `  WX+XX X+henanaccusedchallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidence,an   appellatecourtsstandardofreviewiswhether,afterconsideringtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundthe @ essentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.Jacksonv.Virginia,   443U.S.307,324,99S.Ct.2781,279192(1979);Statev.Duncan,698S.W.2d  63,67(Tenn.1985);Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).Thisruleappliestofindingsofguiltbasedupondirectevidence,circumstantialevidence,oracombinationofdirectandcircumstantialevidence.Statev.Dykes,803S.W.2d250,253(Tenn._Crim_.App. #@ 1990).# X+XXX+s%# %  _X+XX X+ `  Moreover,# X+XXX+ )#acriminaloffensemaybeestablishedexclusivelyby @)" circumstantialevidence.Duchacv.State,505S.W.2d237(Tenn.1973);Statev.  +!$ Jones,901X+XX X+S.W.2d# X+XXX+5*#X+XX X+Ԁ393,396# X+XXX+}*#X+XX X+(Tenn.Crim.App.19# X+XXX+*#X+XX X+95);Statev.Lequire,634S.W.2d -#& 608(Tenn.Crim.App.1987).However,beforeanaccusedmaybeconvictedofacriminaloffensebaseduponcircumstantialevidencealone,thefactsandcircumstances"mustbesostrongandcogentastoexcludeeveryotherreasonablehypothesissavetheguiltofthedefendant."Statev.Crawford,225Tenn.478,470 4 +. S.W.2d610(1971);Jones,901# X+XXX++#X+XX X+S.W.2d# X+XXX+-#X+XX X+Ԁat396.Inotherwords,"[a]webofguilt `6-0 mustbewovenaroundthedefendantfromwhichhecannotescapeandfromwhichfactsandcircumstancesthejurycoulddrawnootherreasonableinferencesavethe  :04 guiltofthedefendantbeyondareasonabledoubt."Crawford,470S.W.2dat613; `  Statev.McAfee,737S.W.2d304,305(Tenn.Crim.App.1987). @  # X+XXX+_-#X+XX X+ `  Indeterminingthesufficiencyoftheevidence,thiscourtshouldnot  reweighorreevaluatetheevidence.Statev.Matthews,805S.W.2d776,779  (Tenn.Crim.App.1990).Questionsconcerningthecredibilityofthewitnesses,theweightandvalueoftheevidence,aswellasallfactualissuesraisedbytheevidenceareresolvedbythetrieroffact.Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835   (Tenn.1978).Normaythiscourtsubstituteitsinferencesforthosedrawnbythetrieroffactfromtheevidence.Liakasv.State,199Tenn.298,305,286S.W.2d @ 856,859(1956);Farmerv.State,574S.W.2d49,51(Tenn.Crim.App.1978).On   thecontrary,thiscourtmustaffordtheStateofTennesseethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidencecontainedintherecordaswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferenceswhichmaybedrawnfromtheevidence.Cabbage,571S.W.2dat835. !` # X+XXX+\/# `  Inpertinentpart,thestatutethatthedefendantswereconvictedofviolatingprovides8 ` Itisunlawfultoknowinglyproduce,sendorcausetobesent,orbringorcausetobebrought,intothisstateforsale,distribution,exhibitionordisplay,orinthisstatetopreparefordistribution,publish,print,exhibit,distribute,oroffertodistribute,ortopossesswithintenttodistributeortoexhibitoroffertodistributeanyobscenematter.... ` `  Tenn.CodeAnn.3917902(a)(Supp.1995)(amended1996). `  Asrelevanttothiscase,thegeneralmensreaprovisionsofthe 2@), CriminalCodeprovide,"'Knowing'referstoapersonwhoactsknowinglywithrespecttotheconductortocircumstancessurroundingtheconductwhenthe `6-0 personisawareofthenatureoftheconductorthatthecircumstancesexist."Tenn. @8.2 CodeAnn.3911302(b)(1997)(emphasisadded);seealsoTenn.CodeAnn.  :04 3911106(a)(20)(1997). `  Additionally,Codesection3917901providesthatcertaindefinitionsapplytoTitle39,Part9(obscenity),unlessthecontextrequiresotherwise.Tenn.CodeAnn.3917901(1997).Thereafter,thesectionsuppliesthefollowingdefinition."'Actualorconstructiveknowledge':apersonisdeemedtohaveconstructiveknowledgeofthecontentsofmaterialwhohasknowledgeoffactswhichwouldputareasonableandprudentpersononnoticeastothesuspectnatureofthematerial[.]"Tenn.CodeAnn.3917901(1)(1997). `  Attrial,thestate'scasewasgearedtowardashowingofthedefendants'constructiveknowledgeofthesuspectnatureofthefilm"HalfandHalf."  Thetrialcourt'sinstructionsincludedthesection3917901(1)definitionofthephrase"actualorconstructiveknowledge." `  Thequestionwhicharisesiswhetherthe"actualorconstructiveknowledge"definitionappliestothecrimesenumeratedundersection3917902,whenthatsectionusestheword"knowingly"todescribethementalstaterequiredtoconstituteanoffenseandmakesnoreferencetothephrase"actualorconstructiveknowledge." `  Tennesseelawprovidesthefollowingprinciplestoaidininterpretationofstatutes.Penalstatutesaretobeconstruedgivingfairimportoftheirtermsinawaywhichpromotesjusticeandeffectstheobjectivesofthecriminalcode.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911104(1997).Thedutyofthecourtsistogiveeffecttolegislativeintentwhilerefrainingfromrestrictingorexpandingastatute'sscopebeyondthatwhichwasintended.See,e.g.,Statev.Sliger,846S.W.2d262,263(Tenn.1993).  :04 Insodoing,thecourts"mustexaminethelanguageofastatuteand,ifunambiguous,applyitsordinaryandplainmeaning."Parksv.TennesseeMunicipal @  LeagueRiskManagementPool,974S.W.2d677,679(Tenn.1998)(citation   omitted).If,ontheotherhand,thelanguageisambiguous,thecourtsmustresorttoexaminationofthestatutoryschemeasawholeandthelegislativehistoryinordertodeterminethemeaning.Id. `   `  Withtheseprinciplesinmind,weholdthatthelanguage"knowingly"inthedescriptionofthecriminaloffenseisunambiguous.Theterm"knowing"isdefinedinsections3911302(b)and106(a)(2)andisannouncedtoapplygenerallytotheentireCriminalCode.Althoughthelanguage"actualorconstructiveknowledge"isdefinedatthebeginningoftheCriminalCodesobscenitystatutesandissaidtoapplyspecificallytoallsectionsinthatpartunlessthecontextrequiresotherwise,thatlanguageisneverusedinsection3917902(a).Wherethelegislaturehasdefinedbothtermsandchosentheformer,ratherthanthelatter,indescribingtheelementsofthecrime,thiscourtmustyieldtotheplainmeaningofthelanguageusedanditsstatutorilydefinedmeaning. `  X+XX X+Wenotewithinterestthatthephrase"actualorconstructive  +!$ knowledge"appearsonlyinthedefinitionssectionoftheobscenitystatutes.See -#& Tenn.CodeAnn.3917901to911.Priortothe1989revisionstotheCriminalCode,section3961101definedtheterm"knowingly"forpurposesoftheobscenitystatutestomean"havingactualorconstructiveknowledgeofthesubjectmatter. 2@), Apersonshallbedeemedtohaveconstructiveknowledgeofthecontentsifhehasknowledgeoffactswhichwouldputareasonableandprudentmanonnoticeastothesuspectnatureofthematerial."Tenn.CodeAnn.3961101(1988)(repealed1989).Section3961104,whichdefinedvariouscrimesrelatedtoobscenity,made  :04 itunlawfulto"knowingly"engageincertainconduct.Thus,thepriorversionofthestatuteincorporatedanactualorconstructiveknowledgedefinitionintothe"knowing"requirement.The1989CriminalCodesimultaneouslyestablishedtheϜsections񛀜3917902(a)1302(b),106(a)(2)definitionof knowinganddeletedthespecialobsenityobscenitydefinitionofthetermwhichencompassedconstructiveknowledge.Thelegislaturedeclinedtousethatphraseinproscribingtheobscenityrelatedactivities.Weareboundbythelegislature'sclearandunambiguouschoiceoftheword"knowingly"insection3917902(a)andthecorrespondingdefinitionof"knowing"insections3911106(a)(20)and302(b).# X+XXX+E# `  `  Asaconsequence,thedefendants'convictionsmaybesustainedonlyifthereissufficientproofofrecordofactualknowledgeoftheproscribedconduct.  LookingfirsttotheconvictionsofthedefendantPendergrass,theevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothestatedemonstratesthatheownedBroadStreetVideoandtherealpropertyuponwhichitwaslocated.HeappliedforandreceivedabusinesstaxlicensefromtheCityofChattanooga.BroadStreetVideostockeditemsofasexualnature,andsignageonthebuildingadvertisedsuchwares.Fromthisevidence,thejurycouldconcludethatdefendantPendergrassknowinglypossessedobscenityforthepurposeofdistributionandthatheknowinglydistributedobscenity. #  1      ׀Equally,onecouldconcludethathedidnot.Thedegreeof -#& hisinvolvementinthebusinesswasnotestablished.Therewasnoevidence,forexample,thatPendergrasswasobservedonthepremisesand/orengagedinactivitiessuchasassistingcustomerswithpurchases,stockingshelves,receiving 2@), † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A'LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  merchandise,ororderingmerchandise. `   `  Asnotedabove,thefactsandcircumstancesofacasebuiltentirelyuponcircumstantialevidence"mustbesostrongandcogentastoexcludeeveryotherreasonablehypothesissavetheguiltofthedefendant."Crawford,225Tenn.  at484,370S.W.2dat613;Jones,901S.W.2dat396.Theproofpresentedattrial, `  evenwhenviewedinthelightmostfavorabletothestate,failstoattainthatlevelofconfidenceastoproofthatthedefendantactedknowingly. `  X+XX X+Weacknowledgethatthereissufficientevidencefromwhichtoinfer @ Pendergrass'possessionofobscenematter.SeeStatev.Pendergrass,795   S.W.2d150,154(Tenn.Crim.App.1989).However,thatthedefendantpossessedthematerialdoesnotperseestablishthatheknowinglydidso.Likewise,the  defenseconcededatoralargumentthat,forpurposesofappellatereview,itdidnotcontestthatthevideo"HalfandHalf"wasobscene.However,thisconcessionisofnoavailinprovingthedefendantPendergrass'knowledgeatthetimeofhisalleged %  crimes.# X+XXX+0w# `'   `  Withoutsufficientproofofknowingconduct,thedefendantPendergrass'convictionscannotstand. `  WithrespecttodefendantBroadStreetVideo'sconviction,wefindthatitmustfail,aswell.BroadStreetVideoisasoleproprietorshipoperatedbyJerryC.Pendergrass.Asoleproprietorshipis"[a]formofbusinessinwhichonepersonownsallassetsofabusinessincontrasttoapartnershipandcorporation.Thesoleproprietorissolelyliableforallthedebtsofthebusiness."ChristineDuncanHittv. @8.2 GeorgeBurkettHitt,No.02A019310CV00218(Tenn.Ct.App.,WesternSection,  :04 Nov.9,1994)(citingBlack'sLawDictionary).IftheevidenceisinsufficientofthedefendantPendergrass'knowingcriminalconduct,itislikewisedeficientofsuchproofwithrespecttohisbusinessidentity,BroadStreetVideo. #  2         @77# II.RemainingIssues    `  Despitethedispositivenatureofourholdingthattheevidenceisinsufficienttosustainthedefendants'convictions,weneverthelessmustaddresstheremainingappellateissuesduetothepossibilityofappealofourdecision.See   Jacobsv.State,224Tenn.106,107,450S.W.2d581,581(1970);Statev.Donald ` RayHammonds,No.03C019709CR00420,slipop.at5(Tenn.Crim.App., @ Knoxville,June24,1999). `  Theresolutionofseveralissuesiscontrolledbyourdeterminationthattheknowledgeelementoftheproscriptivestatutedoesnotincludeconstructiveknowledge.Theaffectedissuesare(1)whetherprosecutorialmisconductoccurredwhentheassistantdistrictattorneyincorrectlystatedthelaw,(2)whetherthetrialcourtproperlyinstructedthejury,(3)whethersection3917902(a)isunconstitutionalasappliedbythetrialcourt.BaseduponourdeterminationinsectionIabove,thesefirsttwoissuesarewithoutmeritresolved,andthethirdismoot. `  ThedefendantscomplainofprosecutorialmisconductinclosingargumentwhentheassistantdistrictattorneymadereferencestothefactthatoneofthedefenseattorneyswasfromCincinnati,Ohio,andanothermemberofthedefenseteamwasfromNashville.Atthehearingonthemotionfornewtrial,the 4 +. trialcourtfoundthatthestate'sargumentwasimproperbutharmless.Weagree.πThestate'sargumentwasimproper;however,muchofitsprejudicewasbluntedbythedefenseattorneySirkin'sreferencesinclosingargumenttothefactthathewasnotfromHamiltonCounty,Tennessee.Inthecontextofthestate'sentireargument,thisaspectisnotadominanttheme.Moreover,thisportionoftheargumentdealtwiththe"community"standardforjudgingwhetherthevideotapewasobscene,andthedefensehasconcededobscenityonappeal.Forthesereasons,weconcludethatthedefendantswerenotprejudicedbythisargument.Harringtonv.State,215   Tenn.338,340,385S.W.2d758,759(1965)(whenanissueofprosecutorialmisconductispresented,theproperinquiryis"whethertheimproperconductcouldhaveaffectedtheverdicttotheprejudiceofthedefendant"). `  Intheremainingconstitutionalissue,tThedefendantsraiseseveralrelatedconstitutionalissues.First,theycontendthatthecriminalizationofthedistributionofobscenevideosviolatesthefundamentalrightsoftheconsumersofobscenitybecausetheeffectistodenysuchconsumersanymeaningfulaccesstoobscenematerials.Wehavereviewedthestateandfederalprecedentscommendedtousbythedefenseinsupportofthisclaim.WeconcludethattheTennesseeConstitutiondoesnotsupportsuchaninterpretation.SeeStatev.Marshall,859S.W.2d289(Tenn.1993)(obscenityis  +!$ notprotectedspeechunderTennesseeConstitution)(Reid,C.J.,andDaughtrey,J.,dissenting);Leechv.AmericanBooksellersAss'n,582S.W.2d738,745(Tenn. .%( 1979)("[T]hiscourtmayinterpretArticleI,19[oftheTennesseeConstitution]asgrantingabsoluteprotectiontospeechandpressandforbidanyandallregulationofpornographyinTennessee.Wehavenoinclinationtodoso.");cf.Statev. 4 +. Pendergrass,795S.W.2d150,15556(Tenn.Crim.App.1989)(upholding `6-0 constitutionalityofpriorobscenitylaw).Weacknowledgethatthedefendantsclaimthatdecisionspriortothesupremecourt's† TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  decisioninDavisv.† TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  Davis,842S.W.2d  :04 † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  † TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  588(Tenn.1992)areinaptbecauseDavis† TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  announcedthefundamentalrightof `  privacyasamatterofstatelaw.However,weconcludethatthesupremecourt'srulingswithrespecttoArticleI,section19supportaconclusionthatthedefendants'challengeshouldberejected. `  Intheirnextconstitutionalsubissue,thedefendantscontendthatthe"community"standardfordeterminingwhethermatterisobsceneviolatesequalprotectionguarantees.Theobscenitystatutedefinesthe"community"asthejudicialdistrictinwhichthecrimeallegedlyoccurred,andthejurymustapply"contemporarycommunitystandards"indeterminingwhetherthematterisobscene.Oursupremecourthasanalyzedananalogouschallengetothisdefinitionof"community"forviolationoftheCommerceClauseandfoundnoconstitutionalinfirmity.SeeDavisKiddBooksellersv.McWherter,866S.W.2d520,530(Tenn.  1993).InDavisKidd,thecourtfoundthatgeographicaldistinctionsfordetermining !` whethermaterialisoffensivebycommunitystandardshavebeenallowedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtandthatthehighcourthasallowedthestateswidelatitudeindefining"community."ThereasoningofDavisKiddleadstoaconclusion `'  thatequalprotectionisnottrampledbyadefinitionof"community"asthejudicialdistrictinwhichthecrimeisallegedtohaveoccurred,ratherthanastatewidestandard. #  3       -#&  `  ThedefendantsraisetwosubissuesinwhichtheycontendthatthefederalandstatedecisionswhichholdthatobscenityisnotprotectedspeechundertheFirstAmendmentandArticleI,section19oftheTennesseeConstitutionare 4 +. wronglydecided,andspecificallythatStanleyv.Georgia,394U.S.557,89S.Ct. `  1243(1969)shouldbeoverruled.aAsthedefendantsproperlycondedcdedconceded,we,񛀛aAsanintermediateappellatecourt,weareboundbythedecisionsoftheTennesseeSupremeCourtastostateandfederalconstitutionalquestions,andtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtastheultimateauthorityastofederalconstitutionalquestions.See,e.g.,Bargerv.Brock,535S.W.2d337,340(Tenn.1976);Statev. `  DudleyW.Marshall,No.11(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,July25,1990)(applying @  ruletocaseinwhichappellantsclaimedobscenespeechshouldbeconstitutionallyprotected),aff'donothergrounds,859S.W.2d289(Tenn.1993).aAccordinglhy,y,we ` adheretoprevailinglawandholdthatobscenityisnotprotectedspeech. `  Finally,thedefendants'claimthatthecumulativeeffectofimproperjuryinstructionsandprosecutorialmisconducthasbeenrenderedmootbyourdeterminationsdiscussedabove. `  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed.Thedefendants'convictionsarereversedandtheindictmentsaredismissed. `     h     _______________________________ `     h     JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGECONDCUR:_____________________________JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,JUDGE_____________________________ALANE.GLENN,JUDGE  :04