People v. Perez

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Perez

56 Misc. 2d 424, 289 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1967 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1017

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 7, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 56 Misc. 2d 424 (People v. Perez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Perez, 56 Misc. 2d 424, 289 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1967 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The challenge to the constitutionality of the anti-marijuana statute may not be sustained on this record.

Fundamental to the very concept of separation of powers is the oft-stated principle that legislative enactments are presumed constitutional and presumed to be supported by facts known to the Legislature and found by them to require the legislation. (Matter of Van Berkel v. Power, 16 N Y 2d 37; Wiggins v. Town of Somers, 4 N Y 2d 215; Patterson v. University of State of N. Y., 14 N Y 2d 432; Wasmuth v. Allen, 14 N Y 2d 391, 397-398, app. dsmd. 379 U. S. 11; Purity Extract Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. 192, 201-202.)

A party challenging the constitutionality of a statute therefore has a heavy burden. Here, the burden was not met. The defendant offered no evidence, and his contentions as to the nature of marijuana are not ‘1 so notorious to all that the production of evidence would be unnecessary ” (9 Wigmore, Evidence, § 2571, p. 547). On this record, therefore, there was no show[425]*425ing that the regulation of the sale, distribution or possession of marijuana is an improper exercise of the police power, and the judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Markowitz and Gold, JJ.

Judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The challenge to the constitutionality of the anti-marijuana statute may not be sustained on this record.

Fundamental to the very concept of separation of powers is the oft-stated principle that legislative enactments are presumed constitutional and presumed to be supported by facts known to the Legislature and found by them to require the legislation. (Matter of Van Berkel v. Power, 16 N Y 2d 37; Wiggins v. Town of Somers, 4 N Y 2d 215; Patterson v. University of State of N. Y., 14 N Y 2d 432; Wasmuth v. Allen, 14 N Y 2d 391, 397-398, app. dsmd. 379 U. S. 11; Purity Extract Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. 192, 201-202.)

A party challenging the constitutionality of a statute therefore has a heavy burden. Here, the burden was not met. The defendant offered no evidence, and his contentions as to the nature of marijuana are not ‘1 so notorious to all that the production of evidence would be unnecessary ” (9 Wigmore, Evidence, § 2571, p. 547). On this record, therefore, there was no show[425]*425ing that the regulation of the sale, distribution or possession of marijuana is an improper exercise of the police power, and the judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Markowitz and Gold, JJ.

Judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Misc. 2d 424, 289 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1967 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perez-nyappterm-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack