People v. Mehdi

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Mehdi

277 N.E.2d 673, 29 N.Y.2d 824, 327 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 937

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 24, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 277 N.E.2d 673 (People v. Mehdi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Mehdi, 277 N.E.2d 673, 29 N.Y.2d 824, 327 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 937 (N.Y. 1971).

Pincite

Opinions

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Term should be reversed and the complaint dismissed on the ground that the evidence at the trial failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants were guilty of disorderly conduct under subdivision 7 of section 240.20 of the Penal Law; more specifically, there is absent from the record the essential quantum of proof that the defendants, ‘ ‘ with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof * * * create [d] a hazardous or physically offensive condition ” by their burning of the flag. Intentional or reckless creation of a hazard is not established merely by the subjective conclusion of the police officer that there was a crowd and restraining barriers or that a small fire might have caused or threatened injury to relatively passive bystanders or sympathizers.

In this view, we do not reach the constitutional argument advanced by the defendants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Term should be reversed and the complaint dismissed on the ground that the evidence at the trial failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants were guilty of disorderly conduct under subdivision 7 of section 240.20 of the Penal Law; more specifically, there is absent from the record the essential quantum of proof that the defendants, ‘ ‘ with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof * * * create [d] a hazardous or physically offensive condition ” by their burning of the flag. Intentional or reckless creation of a hazard is not established merely by the subjective conclusion of the police officer that there was a crowd and restraining barriers or that a small fire might have caused or threatened injury to relatively passive bystanders or sympathizers.

In this view, we do not reach the constitutional argument advanced by the defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 N.E.2d 673, 29 N.Y.2d 824, 327 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mehdi-ny-1971.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack