Legal Opinion

People v. Finkelstein

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 30, 1961PublishedCited by 58 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBurke, J.

Defendants, in a consolidated appeal from unanimously affirmed convictions of violations of section 1141 of the Penal Law, contend, inter alia, that the statute is violative of the Constitution of the United States in that it does not expressly require scienter. We do not agree.

Section 1141 provides in part that “A person who sells * * * or has in his possession with intent to sell * * * any obscene * * * book # * * [i]s guilty of a misdemeanor”. It is our- firm opinion, on this our first opportunity to construe the statute, in this respect, that the definition of the crime is instinct with…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  3. Smith v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  4. Winters v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  5. Matter of Lyons v. GoldsteinNew York Court of Appeals · 1943

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

3Cited by58 opinions

  1. Hamling v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Ginsberg v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Mishkin v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. People v. NievesNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  5. People v. DietzeNew York Court of Appeals · 1989

53 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