People v. Matherson
| Decision Date | 22 April 1965 |
| Citation | 260 N.Y.S.2d 448,208 N.E.2d 180,16 N.Y.2d 509 |
| Parties | , 208 N.E.2d 180 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Nathaniel MATHERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
Defendant was convicted under first count of indictment charging him with possession of an obscene book with intent to sell in violation of Section 1141 of Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40, and on second count of information for selling an obscene book entitled 'Lust Team' in violation of Section 1141 of Penal Law. The Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, entered judgment, and the defendant appealed.
The Appellate Term affirmed the judgment.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that motion to suppress evidence should have been sustained on ground that search warrant was defective, and that generality of language used in first count of information rendered the information fatally defective, and that books were not obscene, and that there was inadequate proof of scienter.
Frank S. Hogan, New York City (H. Richard Uviller, Milton M. Stein, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment affirmed. The seizure of evidence upon which the conviction is based was an incident to a lawful arrest on sufficient cause in a place open to public access. Therefore, the fact a search warrant was defective, as the People concede, because it was a general warrant (cf. Marcus v. Search Warrants, etc., 367 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1708, 6 L.Ed.2d 1127; Stanford v. State of Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 85 S.Ct. 506, 13 L.Ed.2d 431) did not preclude the reception in evidence of exhibits seized as an incident to the arrest.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flack v. Municipal Court for Anaheim-Fullerton JudicialDist. of Orange County
...on this issue in other jurisdictions, to the extent they are apposite, are conflicting. Thus, in People v. Matherson (1965) 16 N.Y.2d 509, 260 N.Y.S.2d 448, 448--449, 208 N.E.2d 180, the New York Court of Appeals held, in a case involving obscene material seized incident to arrest, 'The sei......
-
United States v. Marti
...incident to Saks' lawful arrest. Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 1016 (1927); People v. Matherson, 16 N.Y.2d 509, 260 N.Y.S.2d 448, 208 N.E.2d 180 (1965); cf. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108-109, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965) (overly strict r......
-
People v. Mangialino
...as a general warrant (see also, Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1708, 6 L.Ed.2d 1127; People v. Matherson, 16 N.Y.2d 509, 260 N.Y.S.2d 448, 208 N.E.2d 180). However, absent such a flagrant situation, courts have not required absolute linguistic precision in describing the i......
-
People v. Wrench
...the thing to be seized could not be specified (Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 85 S.Ct. 506, 13 L.Ed.2d 431; People v. Matherson, 16 N.Y.2d 509, 260 N.Y.S.2d 448, 208 N.E.2d 180; Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed.2d 731). The officer could not purchase the film, i......