People v. Perez
| Decision Date | 07 December 1967 |
| Citation | 56 Misc.2d 424,289 N.Y.S.2d 450 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
Harold J. Rothwax for appellant.
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (Michael R. Stack of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOFSTADTER, J.P., and MARKOWITZ and GOLD, JJ.
The challenge to the constitutionality of the anti-marijuana statute may not be sustained on this record.
Fundamental to the very concept of separation of powers is the oft-stated principle that legislative enactments are presumed constitutional and presumed to be supported by facts known to the Legislature and found by them to require the legislation. (Van Berkel v. Power, 16 N.Y.2d 37, 261 N.Y.S.2d 876, 209 N.E.2d 539; Wiggins v. Town of Somers, 4 N.Y.2d 215, 173 N.Y.S.2d 579, 149 N.E.2d 869; Paterson v. University of State of New York, 14 N.Y.2d 432, 252 N.Y.S.2d 452, 201 N.E.2d 27; Wasmuth v. Allen, 14 N.Y.2d 391, 397--398, 252 N.Y.S.2d 65, 200 N.E.2d 756, app. dsmd. 379 U.S. 11, 85 S.Ct. 86, 13 L.Ed.2d 23; Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch, U.S. 192, 201--202, 33 S.Ct. 44, 57 L.Ed. 184).
A party challenging the constitutionality of a statute therefore has a heavy burden. Here, the burden was not met. The defendant offered no evidence, and his contentions as to the nature of marijuana are not 'so notorious to all that the production of evidence would be unnecessary' (9 Wigmore on Evidence, § 2571, p. 547). On this record, therefore, there was no showing that the regulation of the sale, distribution or possession of marijuana is an improper exercise of the police power and the judgment should, therefore be affirmed.
Judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Einhorn
...to demonstrate it beyond a reasonable doubt (Van Berkel v. Power, 16 N.Y.2d 37, 261 N.Y.S.2d 876, 209 N.E.2d 539; People v. Perez, 56 Misc.2d 424, 289 N.Y.S.2d 450). Not only has defendant failed to meet this burden but the interrelation of the statutes is an examply of the correct method o......
-
People v. Kavanaugh
... ... Initially, legislative enactments are presumed valid and the burden is upon the person attacking the validity of the statute that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. See Matter of Van Berkel v. Power, 16 N.Y.2d 37, 261 N.Y.S.2d 876, 209 N.E.2d 539; People v. Perez, ... 56 Misc.2d 424, 289 N.Y.S.2d 450. Further, the proscription of Article III, section 16, of the N.Y.S. Constitution applies to statutes and not to rules or regulations. The purpose of the provision is to prevent the incorporation into legislative enactments, by mere reference to some ... ...
- Sorge v. City of New York