People v. Weingarten

Decision Date30 October 1969
Citation306 N.Y.S.2d 17,25 N.Y.2d 639
Parties, 254 N.E.2d 232 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Irving WEINGARTEN, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Herald Price Fahringer, Buffalo, for appellant.

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (Herman Kaufman and Michael R. Juviler, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

The Trial Judge, hearing the charge that defendant had sold an obscene book (former Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40, § 1141), found that the book fell short of being 'hard-core pornography', but that it was obscene by the less rigid standards laid down in Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 86 S.Ct. 958, 16 L.Ed.2d 56 and accordingly defendant was found guilty.

A prosecution for violation of section 1141 of the former Penal Law is controlled by People v. Richmond County News, Inc., 9 N.Y.2d 578, 216 N.Y.S.2d 369, 175 N.E.2d 681 which measured obscenity in printed material by the test of 'hard-core pornography'. The finding by the Trial Judge was based on his fact valuation of the offending book. Hence the decision amounted to an acquittal which the Appellate Term could not undo by holding that the book was also obscene by the more exacting standard of Richmond County News (People v. Marra, 13 N.Y.2d 18, 241 N.Y.S.2d 409, 191 N.E.2d 792). This is conceded with commendable candor by the District Attorney who agrees with appellant there should be a reversal.

The judgment of the Appellate Term should be reversed and the information dismissed.

FULD, C.J., and BERGAN, BREITEL and GIBSON, JJ., concur.

BURKE, SCILEPPI and JASEN, JJ., concur on constraint of People v. Richmond County News, Inc., 9 N.Y.2d 578, 216 N.Y.S.2d 369, 175 N.E.2d 681 and Larkin v. G. P. Putnam's Sons, 14 N.Y.2d 399, 252 N.Y.S.2d 71, 200 N.E.2d 760.

Judgment reversed, etc.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Mature Enterprises, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • March 1, 1973
    ...People v. Richmond County News, 9 N.Y.2d 578, 586, 216 N.Y.S.2d 369, 375, 175 N.E.2d 681, 685 (1961); People v. Weingarten, 25 N.Y.2d 639, 306 N.Y.S.2d 17, 254 N.E.2d 232 (1969). However, in Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 506, 86 S.Ct. 958, 16 L.Ed.2d 56, supra, the Court explained that......
  • People v. Kirkpatrick
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • October 28, 1970
    ...Weingarten,50 Misc.2d 635, 640, 271 N.Y.S.2d 158, 164; aff'd, 55 Misc.2d 681, 286 N.Y.S.2d 429; reversed on other grounds 25 N.Y.2d 639, 306 N.Y.S.2d 17, 254 N.E.2d 232 11 and were held there, as I hold the stated facts here, to constitute sufficient knowledge by the defendants, Dargis and ......
  • People v. Kirkpatrick
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 15, 1973
    ...50 Misc.2d 635, 640, 271 N.Y.S.2d 158, 164; aff'd, 55 Misc.2d 681, 286 N.Y.S.2d 429, reversed on other grounds 25 N.Y.2d 639, 306 N.Y.S.2d 17, 254 N.E.2d 232 and where held there, as I hold the stated facts here, to constitute sufficient knowledge by the defendants, Dargis and Kirkpatrick, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT