People v. Howell
Buffalo City Court
1Opinion of the CourtCarmelo A. Parlato, J.
Defendants herein have, after trial before this court without a jury, been found guilty as charged, i.e., each with having twice violated subdivision 1 of section 235.05 of the Penal Law promoting obscenity in the second degree. They now have moved, before sentence, pursuant to CPL 330.30 (subd 1) for a setting aside of the verdicts and dismissal of the informations herein, on the ground that said *723subdivision 1 of section 235.05 of the Penal Law is, in conjunction with subdivision 1 of section 235.15, unconstitutional.
The first question which arises is the procedural propriety of considering…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Stanley v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- People v. AbrahamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- People v. FirthNew York Court of Appeals · 1957
- Trio Distributor Corp. v. City of AlbanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1957
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- People v. Capitol News, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. Next Door Cinema Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1978
- People v. Illardo, New York County Courts1978
- State v. Starr Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1979
- People v. MartinCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1979