Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric Eisenberg, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1968-05-16
Citations: 22 N.Y.2d 99
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric Eisenberg, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 99–107

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric Eisenberg, Appellant.
Argued April 2, 1968;
decided May 16, 1968.
Paul G. Chevigny for appellant.
I. As a matter of law the evidence against defendant shows that he did not obstruct a police officer. (People v. Wrieden, 299 N. Y. 425; People v. Fritch, 13 N Y 2d 119; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536.) II. The actions of defendant should not be construed to be a violation of section 1851 of the former Penal Law. (District of Columbia v. Little, 339 U. S. 1; State v. Knudson, 27 S. D. 400; United States v. Heliczer, 373 F. 2d 241.) III. As applied to the actions of defendant section 1851 of the former Penal Law is void for vagueness under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451; Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347.) IV. The conviction of defendant violates his right to freedom of speech, assembly and petition under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (District of Columbia v. Little, 339 U. S. 1; United States v. Heliczer, 373 F. 2d 241; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536; Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296.)
Aaron E. Koota, District Attorney (Raymond J. Scanlan and Harry Brodbar of counsel), for respondent.
I. Appellant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Rodgers, 205 Misc. 1106; Cowley v. People, 83 N. Y. 464; People v. Webster, 139 N. Y. 73; Boyarsky v. Zimmerman Corp., 240 App. Div. 361; People v. Pittman, 14 N Y 2d 885; Howard v. United States, 345 F. 2d 126; People v. Most, 171 N. Y. 423; People v. Street, 20 N Y 2d 231.) II. Section 1851 of the former Penal Law is-not void for vagueness under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. (Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451 ; Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347; United States v. Petrillo, 332 U. S. 1.) III. Appellant’s conviction does not contravene his fundamental rights to freedom of speech, assembly and petition pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. (People v. Knight, 35 Misc 2d 216; People v. Turner, 48 Misc 2d 611, 17 N Y 2d 829; People v. Street. 20 N Y 2d 231.)

Opinion:
Jasen, J.
A review of the record discloses there was sufficient evidence to warrant a finding of guilt with respect to the charge of obstructing an officer in the performance of his duty.
On appellate review, where there are conflicting inferences to be drawn from the proof, the choice of inferences is for the trier of the facts. We have limited jurisdiction to pass on the factual determination affirmed by the Appellate Term, unless unsupported, as a matter of law (People v. Leonti, 18 N Y 2d 384).
Appellant claims, however, that this case '1 presents an extraordinary state of the evidence, which raises the issue to one of law, rather than fact ", since " [a] 11 the events alleged to constitute the crime in this case are recorded from moment to moment in a film shot by the American Broadcasting Company, as a television newsreel. ' ' This is not sustained by the record.
At the time of trial, it was stipulated that the films were not " in sequence " and x' must have been cut and spliced." Furthermore, there was no testimony elicited upon the trial as to whether the events depicted in this television tape represented a complete pictorial record of the facts and circumstances leading to the appellant's arrest. Hence, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that such tape establishes that there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant.
Since we cannot hold, as a matter of law, that the spliced and cut television tape constitutes a complete refutation of the testimony of the People's witnesses, the judgment of conviction should be affirmed.