§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Trevis D. Baker, Appellant. (Appeal No. 2)

Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. Miller v. California

    413 U.S. 15 (1973)   Cited 2,126 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statute regulating obscene speech must be limited to works that depict or describe sexual conduct "which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"

  2. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

    315 U.S. 568 (1942)   Cited 1,983 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the only type of language denied First Amendment protection is fighting words

  3. People v. Weaver

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 745 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 118 times
    Finding that defendant's disorderly conduct arrest was lawful, in part because defendant became "increasingly agitated and belligerent, repeatedly shouting obscenities at his wife and the [arresting] officer"

  4. People v. Dietze

    75 N.Y.2d 47 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 195 times
    Reversing a harassment charge where "[t]here is nothing in the record demonstrating that defendant's statement that she would 'beat the crap out of [complainant] some day or night in the street' was either serious, should reasonably have been taken to be serious, or was confirmed by other words or acts showing that it was anything more than a crude outburst"

  5. People v. Tichenor

    89 N.Y.2d 769 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 108 times
    Finding public harm element met even though offender directed his initial comments at police officer

  6. People v. Fuggazzatto

    62 N.Y.2d 862 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 140 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Fuggazzatto (62 N.Y.2d 862), two indictments were filed simultaneously and were therefore subject to identical time periods for the People to announce their readiness for trial under CPL 30.30.

  7. People v. Munafo

    50 N.Y.2d 326 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 148 times
    Holding that "the disruptive behavior proscribed by disorderly conduct statute must be of public rather than individual dimension"

  8. People v. Todaro

    26 N.Y.2d 325 (N.Y. 1970)   Cited 144 times
    Holding that New York Penal Law § 240.20"does not require proof of the accomplished fact of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm; but proof only from which the risk of it, recklessly created, might be inferred."

  9. People v. Bakolas

    59 N.Y.2d 51 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 74 times
    Rejecting constitutional challenge to unreasonable noise provision, and affirming denial of motion to dismiss criminal information that charged that one "defendant was stopped for a traffic violation and then became abusive to officer, yelling, threatening" and another defendant was observed "standing in the westbound traffic lane of Monroe Ave. yelling at Officer Trite"

  10. People v. Couser

    94 N.Y.2d 631 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 14 times

    Argued April 6, 2000 May 4, 2000. Appeal from Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department. J. Scott Porter, for appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney of Onondaga County, Syracuse (Victoria M. Anthony and James P. Maxwell of counsel), for respondent. BELLACOSA, J.: This appeal requires our Court to determine whether the statutory meaning of the word "commanded" is impermissibly vague under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States