People v. Martin
| Decision Date | 18 March 1965 |
| Citation | 259 N.Y.S.2d 152,207 N.E.2d 197,15 N.Y.2d 933 |
| Parties | , 207 N.E.2d 197 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Frank L. MARTIN et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 43 Misc.2d 355, 251 N.Y.S.2d 66.
Defendants were convicted of disorderly conduct in violation of the Penal Law, Consol. Laws, c. 40, § 722, subd. 2, providing that any person who with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned, acts in such manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct or be offensive to others, is guilty of disorderly conduct. There was evidence that the defendants attended a public meeting of board of education in school, that defendants were endeavoring to bring about integration of grammar schools in school district, that meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p. m., that president requested everyone to leave, that defendants refused to do so, and that defendants remained in what amounted to a 'sit-in.'
The Nassau County District Court, First District, John Daly, J., entered judgments, and the defendants appealed.
The Appellate Term affirmed the judgments and held that evidence was sufficient to sustain in the convictions for disorderly conduct and that, though defendants' attendance at meeting at school in order to protest the alleged failure of the board of education to correct racial imbalance in the schools was proper, the subsequent conduct of the defendants in refusing to leave within a reasonable time after conclusion of the meeting, on the request of authorities, and in obstructing the efforts of school officials to close the school was unlawful, and that decision of the United States Supreme Court prohibiting a state from making criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views does not imply that persons wishing to exercise the right to express their views may comport themselves in a manner which will constitute disorderly conduct as defined in penal statutes.
The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the Penal Law, § 722, subds. 1 and 2, properly construed, does not make criminal the defendants' conduct, and that evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction of the defendants, and that the District Court committed error in precluding the defendants from presenting evidence as to the legitimacy of their purpose in remaining in school auditorium, and that the Penal Law, § 722, subds. 1, 2, is so vague and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Street
...12 N.Y.2d 462, 240 N.Y.S.2d 734, 191 N.E.2d 272, app. dsmd. 375 U.S. 42, 84 S.Ct. 147, 11 L.Ed.2d 107, supra; People v. Martin, 15 N.Y.2d 933, 259 N.Y.S.2d 152, 207 N.E.2d 197, cert. den. 382 U.S. 828, 86 S.Ct. 64, 15 L.Ed.2d 72; People v. Penn, 16 N.Y.2d 581, 260 N.Y.S.2d 847, 208 N.E.2d 7......
-
Lurie v. District Attorney of Kings County, Docket No. B12320
...in fact interferes with petitioners' constitutional rights to communicate ideas by 'nonverbal expression.' (People v. Martin, 15 N.Y.2d 933, 259 N.Y.S.2d 152, 207 N.E.2d 197, cert. den. 382 U.S. 828, 86 S.Ct. 64, 15 L.Ed.2d 72; People v. Penn, 16 N.Y.2d 581, 260 N.Y.S.2d 847, 208 N.E.2d 789......
-
United States v. Jones
...Misc.2d 72, 250 N.Y.S.2d 325 (2d Dept.1964); People v. Martin, 43 Misc.2d 355, 251 N.Y.S.2d 66 (2d Dept.1964), aff'd, 15 N.Y.2d 933, 259 N.Y.S.2d 152, 207 N.E.2d 197 (1965). Compare Henry v. City of Little Rock, 376 U.S. 776, 84 S.Ct. 1042, 12 L.Ed.2d 79 (1964) and Edwards v. South Carolina......
-
People v. Kern
...Ordinance 1.3 as above indicated. In my opinion the case of People v. Martin, 43 Misc.2d 355, 251 N.Y.S.2d 66; affirmed 15 N.Y.2d 933, 259 N.Y.S.2d 152, 207 N.E.2d 197; cert. den. 382 U.S. 828, 86 S.Ct. 64, 15 L.Ed.2d 72, is dispositive of the case at bar. In that case the defendants attend......