People v. Pesky
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Phillip Pesky, Appellant
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
This court is a court of review, restricted in cases of this order to a pronouncement of the law, and without power to act as a trier of the facts.
If those charged with the duty to pass judgment upon the facts might say not unreasonably that the book sold by the defendant was obscene, lewd or indecent beyond a reasonable doubt (Penal Law, § 1141), we are not at liberty to substitute our judgment for theirs, or to super *374 sede their function as the spokesmen of the thought and sentiment of the community in applying to the book complained of the standard of propriety established by the statute.
A different question would be here if we could say as a matter of law that the writing is so innocuous as to forbid the submission of its quality to the triers of the facts. We cannot say that here.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur; Lehman and Kellogg, JJ., dissent.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 17 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.