(DOWNLOAD) "People State New York v. Carol "S"" by Supreme Court of New York # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: People State New York v. Carol "S"
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 11, 1971
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
The defendant raises three issues on this appeal. First, he contends that the court erred in failing to dismiss the indictment on the ground that section 229 of the Mental Hygiene Law was not in force and effect at the time of the indictment. Defendant was charged with unlawfully selling a dangerous drug in violation of section 220.30 of the Penal Law. Subdivision 4 of section 220.00 of said law defines a dangerous drug as a "narcotic drug, depressant or stimulant drug, or hallucinogenic drug". By chapter 332 of the Laws of 1965, section 229 of the Mental Hygiene Law was added, defining an hallucinogenic drug. The section of the Mental Hygiene Law immediately preceding and following section 229 were renumbered by the same Legislature by chapter 813 of the Laws of 1965. There was, however, no renumbering of new section 229. McKinney's Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 34-A, Mental Hygiene Law (Cumulative Annual Pocket Part, p. 220) sets forth section 229 as follows: "§ 229. Hallucinogenic drugs",and notes below that the section has been editorially renumbered 429. Section 229 has been fully set forth by McKinney's after section 428, with the reference: "§ 229 [429]. Hallucinogenic drugs" (p. 233). In our opinion, section 229 has remained in full force and effect at all times and was not repealed by chapter 813 of the Laws of 1965, nor by anything McKinney's editorially. Consequently, the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss. As to the other issues raised by the defendant we find them to be without merit. From the fact that the court did not specifically comment on the prosecution's failure to call a particular witness, it cannot be concluded that it was not considered by the court in reaching his decision. Lastl the sentence was within the discretion of the court, and we believe it was proper on this record. Disposition Judgment affirmed.