Legal Opinion

People v. Dietze

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 19, 1989PublishedCited by 119 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*50OPINION OF THE COURT

Hancock, Jr., J.

Under Penal Law § 240.25 (2), the use of "abusive” language with the intent to "harass” or "annoy” another person is a violation punishable by a 15-day imprisonment. Because the statute, on its face, prohibits a substantial amount of constitutionally protected expression, and because its continued existence presents a significant risk of prosecution for the mere exercise of free speech, we hold section 240.25 (2) to be invalid for overbreadth, under both the State (art I, §8) and Federal (1st & 14th Amends) Constitutions.1 The information, to the extent…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. ButtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  3. Cohen v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Lanzetta v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  5. City of Houston v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by119 opinions

  1. Immuno AG. v. Moor-JankowskiNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
  2. People v. ShackNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. People v. GolbNew York Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. State v. BurkertSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2017
  5. People v. TichenorNew York Court of Appeals · 1997

114 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API