People v. Engel
| Decision Date | 24 March 1960 |
| Citation | 200 N.Y.S.2d 48,7 N.Y.2d 1002,166 N.E.2d 845 |
| Parties | , 166 N.E.2d 845 PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Irving ENGEL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 8 A.D.2d 619, 185 N.Y.S.2d 409.
Defendant was convicted of violating Section 1141 of the Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40, dealing with obscene prints and articles. The Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, Paige and Livoti, JJ., entered judgment, with Loscalzo, J., dissenting, and defendant appealed from the judgment and from an order denying motions.
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and held that no separate appeal lay from the order, which had been reviewed on appeal from the judgment of conviction. Kleinfeld, J., dissented and voted to reverse the judgment of conviction and to dismiss the information, on ground that the conviction could not stand because defendant, though charged in the information with 'wilfully' selling obscene material, was allegedly tried and convicted on evidence of an innocent and unknowing sale.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, and motion was made in the Court of Appeals for enlargement of time.
The Court of Appeals, 7 N.Y.S.2d 725, 193 N.Y.S.2d 466, granted motion for enlargement of time and set the case down for argument during the November, 1959, session of the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, 7 N.Y.2d 760, 193 N.Y.S.2d 883, granted motion for further enlargement of time.
The Court of Appeals, 7 N.Y.2d 890, 197 N.Y.S.2d 199, denied motion to dismiss the appeal and granted application for enlargement of time and set the case down for argument during the February, 1960, session of the Court of Appeals.
Judgment reversed, the information dismissed and the fine remitted upon the authority of Smith v. People of the State of California, 361 U.S. 147, 80 S.Ct. 215, 4 L.Ed.2d 205.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Roderman
...v. Casey, 251 App.Div. 867, 297 N.Y.S. 13 (1937); People v. Engel, 8 A.D.2d 619, 185 N.Y.S.2d 409 (1959) (dissent), rev. e. g., 7 N.Y.2d 1002, 200 N.Y.S.2d 48; People v. Dreares, 15 A.D.2d 204, 206, 221 N.Y.S.2d 819 (1961), App.Dis.N.Y .2d; People v. Gans, 33 N.Y.Crim.Rep. 179, 180, 183 (19......
-
State v. Kuebel
...Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for the same reasons. See Smith v. California, supra; People, etc. v. Engel, 1960, 7 N.Y.2d 1002, 200 N.Y.S.2d 48, 166 N.E.2d 845. Article 1, § 9, of the Constitution of Indiana 'No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of t......
-
People v. Douglas
...that proof of knowledge was necessary to sustain a conviction under the statute the court cited the Smith case and People v. Engel, 7 N.Y.2d 1002, 200 N.Y.S.2d 48. In Engel a candy store operator had been convicted of selling an obscene magazine. The proof was that there were 100 differentl......
-
Gregory v. Ball
...361 U.S. 147, 80 S.Ct. 215, 4 L.Ed.2d 205, dismissed an information under section 1141, Penal Law; no opinion (People v. Engel, 7 N.Y.2d 1002, 200 N.Y.S.2d 48). On July 11, 1960, the Second Department (4-1) dismissed an information under section 1141, Penal Law, holding '* * * proof of scie......