Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/394-u-s-576-606692362
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 13:02:26
Document Index: 46783770

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1425', '§ 1425', '§ 1425', '§ 1425', '§ 1425', '§ 1257']

394 U.S. 576 (1969), 5, Street v. New York - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 606692362
Citation: 394 U.S. 576, 89 S.Ct. 1354, 22 L.Ed.2d 572
Party Name: Street v. New York
89 S.Ct. 1354, 22 L.Ed.2d 572
2. The application of § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, to appellant was violative of rights of free expression assured against state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment, because it permitted him to be punished merely for speaking defiant or contemptuous words about the American flag. Pp. 581, 585-594.
"publicly [to] mutilate, deface, defile, or defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon either by words or act [any flag of the United States]."1 He was given a suspended sentence. We must decide whether, in light of all the circumstances, that conviction denied to him rights of free expression protected by the First Amendment and assured against state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269, 271, 271-277 (1964).
Soon thereafter, a police officer halted his patrol car and found the burning flag. The officer testified that he then crossed to the northwest corner of the intersection, where he found appellant "talking out loud" to a small group of persons. The officer estimated that there were some 30 persons on the corner near the flag and five to 10 on the corner with appellant. The officer testified that as he approached within 10 [89 S.Ct. 1359] or 15 feet of
Appellant was tried before another Criminal Court judge, sitting without a jury, and was convicted of malicious mischief in violation of § 1425, subd. 16, par. & 2.2 He was subsequently given a suspended sentence. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed without opinion. Leave was granted to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, and, after plenary consideration, that court unanimously affirmed. 20 N.Y.2d 231, 229 N.E.2d 187 (1967). We noted probable jurisdiction. 392 U.S. 923 (1968).3
Street argues that his conviction was unconstitutional for three different reasons. [89 S.Ct. 1360] First, he claims that § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, is overbroad, both on its face and as applied, because the section makes it a crime "publicly [to] defy . . . or cast contempt upon [an American flag] by words. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Second, he contends that § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, is vague and imprecise because it does not clearly define the conduct which it forbids. Third, he asserts that New York may not constitutionally
The New York Court of Appeals did not mention in its opinion the constitutionality of the "words" part of § 1425, subd. 16, par. d.4 Hence, in order to vindicate our jurisdiction to deal with this particular issue, we must inquire whether that question was presented to the New York courts in such a manner that it was necessarily decided by the New York Court of Appeals when it affirmed
appellant's conviction. If the question was not so presented, then we have no power to consider it. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1257(2), 1257(3); Bailey v. Anderson, 326 U.S. 203, 206-207 (1945). Moreover, this Court has stated that, when, as here, the highest state court has failed to pass upon a federal question, it will be assumed that the omission was due to want of proper presentation in the state courts, unless the aggrieved party in this Court can affirmatively show the contrary. See, e.g., Bailey v. Anderson, supra; Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. v. McGuire, 196 U.S. 128, 131-133 (1905).
In this case, any want of presentation by the appellant must have occurred at the trial level, for there appears to be no doubt that the...
Edward C. Fiedler, Ciarles F. Samson, Roger D. Mellick, J. Wright Brown, Kenneth Boardman, Harold W. Carhart, C. Maury Jones, Clarkson Runyon, Jr., Archie M. Reid, Louis Lee Stanton, Robert A. Haughey, Van R. Halsey, Walter I. Clayton, Dewees W. Dilworth, F. K. M. Hunter, Stuart Scott, Jr., Albert Francke, David A. Lowry, Walter B. Levering, Edward J. Stray, John B. Maher And Joseph J. O'brien, General Partners, And John T. Winkhaus, Limited Partner, Doing Business As Carlisle & Jacquelin a Partnership And New York Stock Exchange & Financial Employees Independent Association, 678 (1944)