People v. Salisbury
| Decision Date | 29 November 1966 |
| Citation | 223 N.E.2d 43,276 N.Y.S.2d 634,18 N.Y.2d 899 |
| Parties | , 223 N.E.2d 43 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robert SALISBURY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Judicial Department.
Malvine Nathanson and Anthony F. Marra, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Nat H. Hentel, Kew Gardens (Benj. J. Jacobson, Jackson Heights, of counsel), for respondent.
Complaint, sworn to by custodian of defendant on behalf of the Catholic Home Bureau, charged that defendant, a minor 16 years of age, was wilfully disobedient to the lawful and reasonable commands of the Catholic Home Bureau, and was morally depraved or in danger of becoming morally depraved, and that complainant had been informed by defendant's foster father that on certain date the defendant was found unconscious in the vicinity of a high school, was taken to hospital, and was treated for overdose of demerol, a narcotic drug.
The Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County, T. Vincent Quinn, J., entered a judgment adjudging the defendant to be a 'wayward minor' within meaning of Section 913-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure providing that any person between ages of 16 and 21 who is wilfully disobedient to the reasonable and lawful commands of parent, guardian, or other custodian and is morally depraved or in danger of becoming morally depraved may be deemed a 'wayward minor.' The defendant appealed.
The Appellate Term entered a judgment affirming the judgment of the Criminal Court.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, contending that his conviction was based on incompetent evidence in violation of Section 913--b of the Code of Criminal Procedure which requires competent evidence in support of an adjudication as a 'wayward minor,' and that the evidence presented was insufficient as a matter of law to support the adjudication, and that he was deprived of due process because the phrase 'morally depraved' in Section 913--a of the Code of Criminal Procedure is unconstitutionally vague.
Judgment affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gesicki v. Oswald
...setting forth its reasons, the argument that Section 913-a(5) and (6) are unconstitutionally vague in People v. Salisbury, 18 N.Y.2d 899, 276 N.Y.S. 2d 634, 223 N.E.2d 43 (1966). In recent cases postdating In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), the court has refused ......
-
A. v. City of New York
...236, 239, 218 N.E.2d 288, 290; People v. Byron, 17 N.Y.2d 64, 67, 268 N.Y.S.2d 24, 26, 215 N.E.2d 345, 347; People v. Salisbury, 18 N.Y.2d 899, 276 N.Y.S.2d 634, 223 N.E.2d 43; Matter of Mario, 65 Misc.2d 708, 317 N.Y.S.2d 659.) In the Bergerson case (17 N.Y.2d 398, 271 N.Y.S.2d 236, 218 N.......
-
Gesicki v. Oswald
...1968); Smith v. Follette, 69 Civil 5182 (S.D.N.Y.1970); Benton v. Copinger, 291 F.Supp. 141 (D.Md.1968). In People v. Salisbury, 18 N.Y.2d 899, 276 N.Y.S.2d 634, 223 N.E.2d 43 (1966), the Court of Appeals sustained (without opinion) the constitutionality of the statute against the propositi......
-
People v. Allen
...would lead to correction. The court, as recently as 1966, has sustained the constitutionality of the statute (People v. Salisbury, 18 N.Y.2d 899, 276 N.Y.S.2d 634, 223 N.E.2d 43) against the argument that 'morally depraved' was too vague a statutory prescription (p. 900, 276 N.Y.S.2d p. 635......