People v. Troia
| Decision Date | 22 March 1955 |
| Citation | 207 Misc. 463 |
| Parties | The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>Frank Troia, Appellant. |
| Court | New York District Court |
Rosen & Rosen for appellant.
Richard E. Hanniff for Frank D. Mather, complainant.
Raymond C. Baratta, District Attorney (Robert F. Winne of counsel), for respondent.
This is an appeal by the above-named defendant from a judgment rendered against him following his trial without a jury in a Court of Special Sessions of the Town of East Fishkill, Dutchess County, New York, before RALPH J. WARREN, Esq., Justice of the Peace, on July 30, 1954, convicting him of a violation of section 1434 of the Penal Law of the State of New York.
It appears that the complainant, Frank D. Mather, was the owner of property in the town of East Fishkill, an incident of which ownership was a right of way over property of the defendant Frank Troia. The defendant placed a truck and certain timbers upon the right of way as an obstruction, and it is for so doing that he was charged with and tried for a violation of the afore-mentioned section.
The defendant appeals on several grounds, among which is the claim that the section applies only to public as distinguished from private roads and rights of way, and since the right of way in question was private the defendant was not guilty of violating the statute. Since in the opinion of the court this position is well taken and necessitates not only a reversal but a dismissal of the information, the court will not discuss at length the other claimed errors, except to state at this point that the statute appears to be one making a violation thereof malum prohibitum rather than malum in se, and consequently no specific criminal intent is required on the part of the defendant to effect a violation thereof.
Certainly the purpose of this law is to punish anyone who intentionally throws or places materials or substances upon a public highway which may injure any person, animal or property. That such was the legislative intent is apparent from an examination of the statute as originally enacted and the several amendments thereto. Present section 1434 of the Penal Law, then designated as section 654a, first became a law on April 17, 1896, constituting chapter 304 of the Laws of 1896. The title of said law reads as follows: "An act to amend the penal code by inserting therein a new section to be known as section six hundred and fifty-four-a, relative to deposit of certain substances on the public roads." As originally enacted its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...intent to justify conviction. State v. Nesbitt, 79 Idaho 1, 310 P.2d 787; State v. Faith, 180 Mo.App. 484, 166 S.W. 649; People v. Troia, 207 Misc. 463, 141 N.Y.S.2d 90. State v. Shedoudy, supra, went further than appellants say. This court said that the question of whether criminal intent ......
-
Krueger v. Noel, 66503
...Law § 31 (1972). A New York decision touches upon the question of a defendant's knowledge under a similar statute. People v. Troia, 207 Misc. 463, 141 N.Y.S.2d 90 (1955). Troia placed a truck and certain timbers in the right of way of a private road. He was convicted of violating a statute ......
-
People v. Bunton
...mud on the roadway (Nielson v. City of New York, 38 A.D.2d 592, 328 N.Y.S.2d 698), timbers obstructing the road (People v. Troia, 207 Misc. 463, 141 N.Y.S.2d 90), as well as broken glass bottles (People v. Schaub, 105 Misc.2d 704, 432 N.Y.S.2d 803). The overall weight of authority, then, su......