People v. Vest
| Decision Date | 20 October 1960 |
| Citation | 206 N.Y.S.2d 471,11 A.D.2d 1080 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Owen VEST, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Thomas Croucher, Canandaigua, for appellant.
M. Maurice Chacchia, Geneva, for respondent.
Before BASTOW, J. P., and GOLDMAN, HALPERN, McCLUSKY and HENRY, JJ.
The defendant has been convicted of assault, second degree, in violation of subdivision 5 of section 242 of the Penal Law. An altercation arose between defendant and two police officers in connection with the efforts of the latter to have defendant move his automobile. After this had been accomplished, the officers returned to their car and were followed by defendant. The patrolmen were sitting alone in their car with no other persons near when it is claimed defendant addressed vile and insulting words to one of the officers, who announced that defendant was under arrest. In the ensuing fracas it is contended the assault was committed. The Court correctly instructed the jury 'that the arrests were not lawful arrests, unless you find that the defendant Vest had committed disorderly conduct.' The statutory definition of the latter offense was given to the jury. Penal Law, Sec. 722, subd. 2. There was a proper instruction that proof of lawful arrest was required. Finally, in response to a request, the Court charged that the use of the offensive, insulting language was not sufficient to constitute the offense without proof that it annoyed or disturbed others. Upon the present record there was no evidence from which a finding could be made that the acts of appellant could reasonably be held to have been done 'with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace (might) be occasioned' so as to have constituted the offense of disorderly conduct. cf. People v. Perry, 265 N.Y. 362, 364, 193 N.E. 175, 176. 'The conduct charged must at least be such that a breach of the peace has become imminent or might reasonably be expected or intended to flow from such conduct.' People v. Monnier, 280 N.Y. 77, 79, 19 N.E.2d 789, 790.
Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law and facts, and a new trial granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Belcher
...Therefore, this is not a case of forcible entry such as occurred in People v. Field, City Ct., 15 N.Y.S.2d 561; People v. Vest, 11 A.D.2d 1080, 206 N.Y.S.2d 471; People v. Singleton, Mag.Ct., 117 N.Y.S.2d 114; or Titcomb v. State of New York, 30 Misc.2d 902, 222 N.Y.S.2d Generally, the entr......
-
People v. Jensen
...of events is an inappropriate predicate for a second degree assault charge under Penal Law § 120.05(3) (see, e.g., People v. Vest, 11 A.D.2d 1080, 206 N.Y.S.2d 471). While the impulse to seek retribution is understandable when a law enforcement officer has been frustrated, taunted and even ......
-
People v. Gingello
...246, 317 N.Y.S.2d 4, 265 N.E.2d 532, People v. Todaro, 26 N.Y.2d 325, 310 N.Y.S.2d 303, 258 N.E.2d 711, as well as People v. Vest, 11 A.D.2d 1080, 206 N.Y.S.2d 471. The people respond by arguing that they must show a substantial risk of public alarm, not actual public alarm to sustain a dis......
-
People v. Lewis
...it or explaining its connection with the statutory offense (People v. Dority, 282 App.Div. 995, 125 N.Y.S.2d 526; People v. Vest, 11 A.D.2d 1080, 206 N.Y.S.2d 471). The charge was also deficient in failing to marshal the facts and in failing to outline the contentions of the parties (People......