People v. E
| Decision Date | 07 January 1970 |
| Citation | 255 N.E.2d 721,26 N.Y.2d 622,307 N.Y.S.2d 465 |
| Parties | , 255 N.E.2d 721 The PEOPLE etc., Respondent, v. Gregory E. (ANONYMOUS), Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Judicial Department, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts.
Malvine Nathanson and Milton Adler, New York City, for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty. (Raymond J. Scanlan and Harry Brodbar, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
In complaint, mother of 17 year old boy alleged that he was wilfully disobedient to lawful and reasonable commands and was morally depraved or in danger of becoming morally depraved, because he refused to attend school and did not seek employment, and that he stayed out of house late at night against her wishes, and that he associated with people of whom she disapproved, and that she believed that he smoked 'reefers,' and that she had observed him sniffing glue in a handkerchief.
The Criminal Court of the City of New York, County of Kings, adjudged the boy to be a wayward minor and sentenced him to the Elmira Reformatory. Thereafter the boy was found to have violated the terms of his probation and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment in the New York City Reformatory.
The boy appealed to the Court of Appeals pursuant to a certificate of Fuld, C.J., of the Court of Appeals. The boy contended that the wayward minor statute, Code Cr.Proc. § 913--a et seq., is unconstitutionally vague in that it is susceptible of arbitrary application, and that the wayward minor statute contains impermissible class legislation, and that lack of findings made the judgment fatally defective, and that evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the adjudication. The People contended that in the light of the decisions of the Court of Appeals announced subsequent to affirmance by the Appellate Term of the judgment appealed from in the instant case, as to quantum of proof necessary to support adjudication as a wayward minor, the order of the Appellate Term should be reversed, but without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint, should one be warranted, following an updated probation report made available to the Court of Appeals, and that the wayward minor statute, which is clear and precise, does not unconstitutionally denigrate fundamental rights of boy, and is a recognition that the State in its role as parens patriae has a serious responsibility to minors within its jurisdiction.
Judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gesicki v. Oswald
...Salisbury, holding simply that determinations of waywardness were not sustained by the record. See People v. Gregory E. (anon.), 26 N.Y.2d 622, 307 N.Y.S.2d 465, 255 N.E.2d 721 (1970); People v. Martinez, 23 N.Y.2d 780, 297 N.Y.S.2d 144, 244 N.E.2d 711 (1968). Since these decisions illustra......
-
Gesicki v. Oswald
...and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. The latest case to deal with the question is People v. Gregory E. (Anon), 26 N.Y.2d 622, 307 N.Y.S.2d 465, 255 N.E. 2d 721 (1970). There the court refused to rule further on constitutionality, although the constitutional issues were app......
-
People v. Cuda
...144, 145, 244 N.E.2d 711, 712 and People v. Salisbury, 18 N.Y.2d 899, 276 N.Y.S.2d 634, 223 N.E.2d 43. In People v. E. (Anonymous), 26 N.Y.2d 622, 307 N.Y.S.2d 465, 255 N.E.2d 721 and in three companion cases in People v. martinez, supra, the Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint upon th......
- People v. Solomon
-
The Myth Of Rehabilitation
...May 15, 1972) 2. See, e.g., People v. Allen, 22 N.Y. 2d 465,470 (1968) ; People v. Duke , 23 N.Y. 2d 780 (1968); People v. Gregory E., 26 N.Y. 2d 622 (1970). her parents or left home &dquo;in danger of becoming morally de-praved&dquo; ? There was a tendency in the few cases I saw to makethe......