People v. Onofre
Decision Date | 18 December 1980 |
Citation | 415 N.E.2d 936,434 N.Y.S.2d 947,51 N.Y.2d 476 |
Parties | , 415 N.E.2d 936, 20 A.L.R.4th 987 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Ronald ONOFRE, Respondent. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Conde J. PEOPLES, III, and Philip S. Goss, Appellants. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mary SWEAT, Appellant. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
These appeals, argued together, present a common question viz., whether the provision of our State's Penal Law that makes consensual sodomy a crime is violative of rights protected by the United States Constitution. We hold that it is.
Defendant Onofre was convicted in County Court of Onondaga County of violating section 130.38 of the Penal Law (consensual sodomy) after his admission to having committed acts of deviate sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old male at defendant's home. 1 The factual admission followed the court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the statute was an invasion of his constitutionality protected right of privacy and that it denied him equal protection of the laws.
Defendants Peoples and Goss were convicted in Buffalo City Court of violating the consensual sodomy statute after a jury trial at which evidence was adduced that they had engaged in an act of oral sodomy in an automobile parked on a street in the City of Buffalo in the early morning hours. Defendant Sweat was convicted of the same crime after a jury trial in the same court on proof that she had committed a similar act with a male in a truck parked on a street in a residential area of the city about 1:30 A.M. In the cases in Buffalo City Court motions by defendants for dismissals of the informations on the ground that section 130.38 of the Penal Law is unconstitutional because it deprives them of equal protection of the law and denies their right of privacy had been denied.
On appeal by defendants from the judgments of conviction the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed in the case of Onofre and dismissed the indictment, concluding that section 130.38 of the Penal Law was unconstitutional and the County Court of Erie County affirmed the convictions of Peoples, Goss and Sweat, rejecting the claims of unconstitutionality. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed; those of County Court should be reversed and the informations dismissed.
The statutes under which these defendants were charged and convicted provide as follows:
Because the statutes are broad enough to reach noncommercial, cloistered personal sexual conduct of consenting adults and because it permits the same conduct between persons married to each other without sanction, we agree with defendants' contentions that it violates both their right of privacy 2 and the right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed them by the United States Constitution.
As to the right of privacy. At the outset it should be noted that the right addressed in the present context is not, as a literal reading of the phrase might suggest, the right to maintain secrecy with respect to one's affairs or personal behavior; rather, it is a right of independence in making certain kinds of important decisions, with a concomitant right to conduct oneself in accordance with those decisions, undeterred by governmental restraint what we referred to in People v. Rice, 41 N.Y.2d 1018, 1019, 395 N.Y.S.2d 626, 363 N.E.2d 1371 as "freedom of conduct". (See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 598-600, 97 S.Ct. 869, 875-876, 51 L.Ed.2d 64.) The right, which has been called "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men" (Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478, 48 S.Ct. 564, 572, 72 L.Ed. 944 (Brandeis, J., dissenting)), "has been viewed as emanating from the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958); and of speech, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969); the fourth amendment, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967); the ninth amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring); the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, id.; and the concept of liberty guaranteed by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973)" (Lovisi v. Slayton, D.C., 363 F.Supp. 620, 624, affd., 4 Cir., 539 F.2d 349, cert. den. 429 U.S. 977, 97 S.Ct. 485, 50 L.Ed.2d 585 supra).
As recently as 1976 the Supreme Court took pains in Carey v. Population Servs. Int., 431 U.S. 678, 684-685, 97 S.Ct. 2010, 2015-16, 52 L.Ed.2d 675 to observe that "the outer limits" of the decision-making aspect of the right of privacy "have not been marked by the Court", noting however that "among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference" are personal decisions relating to marriage (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 1823, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010, supra), procreation (Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655), contraception (Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453-454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, 31 L.Ed.2d 349), family relationships (Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 442, 88 L.Ed. 645), child rearing and education (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 573, 69 L.Ed. 1070; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042), and abortion (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 154, 93 S.Ct. 705, 727, 35 L.Ed.2d 147, supra.
The People are in no disagreement that a fundamental right of personal decision exists; the divergence of the parties focuses on what subjects fall within its protection, the People contending that it extends to only two aspects of sexual behavior marital intimacy (by virtue of the Supreme Court's decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 supra) and procreative choice (by reason of Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed. 2d 349 supra and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147, supra)). Such a stance fails however adequately to take into account the decision in Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542, supra and the explication of the right of privacy contained in the court's opinion in Eisenstadt. In Stanley the court found violative of the individual's right to be free from governmental interference in making important, protected decisions a statute which made criminal the possession of obscene matter within the privacy of the defendant's home. Although the material itself was entitled to no protection against government proscription (Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498) the defendant's choice to seek sexual gratification by viewing it and the effectuation of that choice within the bastion of his home, removed from the public eye, was held to be blanketed by the constitutional right of privacy. That the right enunciated in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510, supra to make decisions with respect to the consequence of sexual encounters and, necessarily, to have such encounters, was not limited to married couples was made clear by the language of the court in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, 31 L.Ed.2d 349, supra: In a footnote appended to the Stanley citation the court set out the following quotation from that decision (405 U.S. p. 453, n. 10, 92 S.Ct. p. 1038 n. 10):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowers v. Hardwick
...Petitioner 36-37 and Brief for David Robinson, Jr., as Amicus Curiae 23-28, on the one hand, with People v. Onofre, 51 N.Y.2d 476, 489, 434 N.Y.S.2d 947, 951-952, 415 N.E.2d 936, 941 (1980); Brief for the Attorney General of the State of New York, joined by the Attorney General of the State......
-
Schochet v. State
...performed in private by adult persons of the opposite sex." The Court of Appeals of New York, in People v. Onofre, 51 N.Y.2d 476, 488, 434 N.Y.S.2d 947, 951, 415 N.E.2d 936, 940-941 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 987, 101 S.Ct. 2323, 68 L.Ed.2d 845 (1981), held that a New York statute viola......
-
Schochet v. State
...guilty. Given the jury verdict in this case, one might wonder why Ms. Sullivan was not also charged with the offense.5 See People v. Onofre, 415 N.E.2d 936 (N.Y.1980), cert. denied 451 U.S. 987, 101 S.Ct. 2323, 68 L.Ed.2d 845 (1981); State v. Pilcher, 242 N.W.2d 348 (Iowa 1976); Post v. Sta......
-
Christensen v. State
...Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487 (Ky.1992) (involving public solicitation in a downtown Lexington parking area); People v. Onofre, 51 N.Y.2d 476, 434 N.Y.S.2d 947, 415 N.E.2d 936 (Ct.App.1980) (involving the commission of sexual acts in an automobile parked on a public street); Commonwealth v. Bonadi......
-
Narrative and jurisprudence in state courts: the example of constitutional challenges to sex conduct regulation.
...171 (Mich. Ct. App, 1980) (adult male approached three officers and offered to perform acts of fellatio for $25). People v. Onofre, 415 N.E.2d 936 (N.Y 1980) (two of the three consolidated cases involved fellatio in cars parked on the street in the early morning hours; the other involved tw......
-
Marc Spindelman, Homosexuality's Horizon
...while simultaneously and uncritically building on the authority of the New York State Court of Appeals' decision in People v. Onofre, 51 N.Y.2d 476 (1980) (see Hernandez, 794 N.Y.S.2d at 594-95, 597), a case involving sexual inequality that I discuss in some detail in Spindelman, supra note......
-
Coming out: decision-making in state and federal sodomy cases.
...prohibiting sodomy between unmarried persons exceeded the police power and violated the equal protection doctrine); People v. Onofre, 415 N.E.2d 936 (N.Y. 1980) (reversing a sodomy conviction and declaring the statute (162) See State v. Morales, 826 S.W.2d 201, 202 (Tex. App. 1992), rev'd, ......
-
A tribute to the honorable Hugh R. Jones.
...of sadness and loss for his passing. Jones, J. dissenting in part. (1) 298 N.E.2d 622 (N.Y. 1973). (2) 313 N.E.2d 49 (N.Y. 1974). (3) 415 N.E.2d 936 (N.Y. (4) 439 N.E.2d 359 (N.Y. 1982). (5) 460 N.E.2d 1325 (N.Y. 1984). (6) Hon. Hugh R. Jones, Cogitations on Appellate Decision-Making, in 34......