People v Storm-Eggnick
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 21, 2009
Albany City Ct
People of the State of New York
against
Abigail Storm-Eggnick, Defendant.
09-195639
P. David Soares, Esq.
Albany County District Attorney
Albany City Court - Criminal Part
Morton Avenue at Broad Street
Albany, New York 12202
Matthew C. Peluso, Esq.
Assistant District Attorney
Abigail Storm-Eggnick
Defendant pro se
Rachel L. Kretser, J.
The defendant, Abigail Storm-Eggnick, is charged with two counts of
unlawful possession of marihuana, a violation, in violation of Penal Law §221.05.
Defendant moves, pro se, to dismiss the charges against her. The People have responded
through the affirmation in opposition of Matthew C. Peluso, Esq., filed August 27, 2009. The
matter now comes before the Court for a decision.
Motion to Dismiss for Facial
Insufficiency
The defendant's motion for an order,
pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30(1)(a) and 170.35(1)(a) dismissing the information which
charges the defendant with unlawful possession of marihuana [Penal Law §221.05], on
grounds that the information is facially insufficient and defective, is hereby denied.
An information is sufficient on its face when it (1) substantially conforms to the requirements of CPL §100.15, (2) sets forth allegations which "provide reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the offense charged" and (3) contains non-hearsay allegations which "establish, if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof." [*2]CPL §100.40(1); People v. Alejandro, 70 NYS2d 927 (1987). This third requirement is also known as the "prima facie case" requirement. The Alejandro Court further held that failure to comply with the prima facie case requirement is a jurisdictional defect.
Penal Law §221.05 states in pertinent part that "[a] person is guilty of unlawful possession of marihuana when [s]he knowingly and unlawfully possesses marihuana."
The Court notes that "the prima facie case requirement is not the same as the burden
of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required at trial." People v. Henderson, 92 NY2d
677 (1999). "So long as the factual allegations of an information give an accused notice
sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being
tried twice for the same offense, they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or
technical reading." People v. Casey, 95 NY2d 354 (2000). Upon review of the
information herein, this Court finds that it is sufficient on its face, pursuant to CPL
§§100.15, 100.40. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss for facial
insufficiency is denied.
Motion to Dismiss on Constitutional
Grounds
The defendant moves to dismiss the
charge arguing that the statute in question is unconstitutional on free exercise of religion, equal
protection, vagueness, and due process grounds.[FN1] The Court's constitutional analysis must begin
with the recognition that all statutes enjoy an exceedingly strong presumption of
constitutionality. Rochester Gas and Electric v. Public Service Commission, 71 NY2d
313 (1988). While this presumption is rebuttable, unconstitutionality must be demonstrated
beyond a reasonable doubt, and only as a last resort should courts strike down legislation on the
ground of unconstitutionality. Wiggins v. Town of Somers, 4 NY2d 215, 219 (1958).
In People v. Shepard, 50 NY2d 640 (1980), the defendant was charged with possession of nine marihuana plants in his home. He argued that marihuana is a "harmless substance and, therefore, the State of New York had no legitimate interest in prohibiting its private use or possession." Id. at 643. Notably, the defendant argued that marihuana posed "no significant harm nor health danger to the user" and that "use of marihuana was less harmful than many other drugs and commonly used substances." Id. Citing a "disagreement regarding the effects of marihuana[,]" the court explained that the marihuana prohibition "represents the current and considered judgment of an elected Legislature acting on behalf of the people of this State." Id. at 645. The court explained that even if it disagreed with the legislature about the safety of marihuana, it "lack[ed] the right to substitute [its] own sense of what is a dangerous substance for the considered judgment of the legislature." Id. at 645-46.
Similarly, while the defendant herein has raised many cogent arguments in her voluminous
briefs, this Court declines the invitation to overstep it's constitutional authority . The activity at
issue in this case historically has been within the realm of the legislative branch and the
precedential support for that legal truism makes it impossible for the Court to find in defendant's
favor, even if it were inclined to do so. Any medical, economic, social or other benefits asserted
by the defendant are properly left to be weighed by the legislature. Upon review of the
information herein, this Court [*3]finds that the statute comports
with constitutional requirements. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss on
constitutional grounds is denied.
I. FREE EXERCISE OF
RELIGION
Defendant argues that the statute
violates her First Amendment right to the Free Exercise of Religion. Under First Amendment
jurisprudence "the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to
comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law
proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).' " Catholic
Charities of Diocese of Albany v. Serio, 7 NY3d 510, 521-22 (2006) (citing
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990)).
A law is neutral if it does not have the purpose of targeting religious conduct. Id. at 522.
The Court finds that the marihuana prohibition does not purposefully target religious activity.
Therefore, the defendant's Free Exercise claim must fail.
Defendant also argues that the statute violates her Free Exercise rights under the New York
State Constitution. In New York, "when the State imposes an incidental burden on the right to
free exercise of religion' we must consider the interest advanced by the legislation that imposes
the burden, and . . . [t]he respective interests must be balanced to determine whether the
incidental burdening is justified' ". Id. at 525 (internal citations omitted). In
Serio, the court determined that in order to overcome a neutral statute of general
applicability, the party challenging the statute must show that it is unreasonable. Id. at
526. Even assuming that the defendant has a bona fide religious interest in the use of marijuana,
the Court finds that she has failed to meet this burden. If the legislature determines that the
religious exemption proffered by the defendant would undermine the regulation, and render
impotent the legislature's ability to pursue its substantial interest in the public health and welfare,
that determination is "entitled to deference." Id. at 527. Therefore, the Court finds that,
on balance, the interests do not render the statute an unreasonable interference with the
defendant's religious exercise.
II. EQUAL
PROTECTION
Defendant argues that the statute
violates the Equal Protection Clause because it treats marihuana users differently than various
other classes of people. However, the Equal Protection Clause does not prevent the legislature
from enacting a statute which treats different classes of people in different ways. Matter of
Malpica-Orsini, 36 NY2d 568 (1975); Maresca v. Cuomo, 64 NY2d 242 (1984). A
legislative enactment will pass constitutional muster if the governmental classification is based
upon some conceivable and legitimate State interest. Maresca, supra at 250.
Defendant argues that strict scrutiny is the proper test in this case. Strict scrutiny of a
legislative classification is reserved, however, for a situation where the classification
impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar
disadvantage of a suspect class. Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976). The defendant repeatedly asserts that her rights to possess and use marihuana are
fundamental. However, applying those principles to the state marihuana prohibition, the court in
People v. Moore, 167 Misc 2d 994 (NY Crim. Ct. 1996), held that "there is no
fundamental constitutional right to possess . . . marijuana." (internal citations omitted). Further,
defendant has not argued that marihuana smokers are a suspect class which would require a strict
scrutiny analysis of the statute.[FN2] In any event, the [*4]Court finds that no such suspect class is implicated in this case.
Therefore the Equal Protection Doctrine requires only that a legitimate government objective be
advanced by the legislation. Conn. Dep't of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003). The
regulation of substances which the legislature finds dangerous to the public health and welfare is
one such interest. Prohibiting the possession of such dangerous substances is rationally related to
that interest; the state's prohibition is, therefore, consistent with equal protection. The Court of
Appeals held as much in Shepard. 50 NY2d at 640 (1980).
III.
VAGUENESS
Defendant next argues that the
statute is unconstitutionally vague and violates due process. In order to survive a challenge for
vagueness, a statute (1) must provide sufficient notice of what conduct is prohibited and (2) must
not be written in such a manner as to permit or encourage arbitrary and discriminatory
enforcement. People v. Bright, 71 NY2d 376 (1988). The language of the statute must be
sufficiently unambiguous so that persons of ordinary intelligence are not forced to guess at the
meaning of the statutory terms. Foss v. City of Rochester, 65 NY2d 247 (1985). Both
potential offenders and the police must have a clear understanding of what conduct is prohibited.
People v. Stuart, 100 NY2d 412 (2003). The Court finds that the restriction prohibiting
the possession of marihuana is specific and provides clear notice as to what constitutes a
violation of the statute. Accordingly, the Court finds that the statute is not unconstitutionally
vague.
IV. DUE
PROCESS
Defendant argues that the statute violates her right to
privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because a person's private
use and possession of marihuana cannot be legitimately regulated by the state.[FN3] It is important to note, however,
that the marihuana possession at issue in this case does not implicate any heightened expectation
of privacy which might be associated with use or possession in the home. Here, the defendant
twice carried a marihuana plant into the capital building.
The right to privacy under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments "turn[s] upon the quality
of the space inhabited or traversed, i. e., whether it is public or private space. An individual has
been held to have a significantly reduced expectation of privacy when passing along a public
way." People v. Bauer, 140 AD2d 450, 451 (2d Dept 1988) (internal citations omitted).
Here, "[h]aving made [herself] readily available for public viewing," the defendant could not
have any reasonable expectation that her activities in a public building would not be scrutinized.
"Where police surveillance is confined to activities openly conducted in a public place there is
no Fourth Amendment intrusion." Id at 451.
Other
Motions
[*5]All motions not granted
herein are hereby denied. This opinion shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court. The
matter is adjourned to November 2, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. for pre-trial conference.
ENTER.SO ORDERED.
This 21st day of October, 2009___________________________________
Albany, New YorkRachel L. Kretser
Albany City Court Judge
Footnotes
Footnote 1: The defendant's additional
constitutional arguments (that the marihuana prohibition is fraudulent, that it restricts her
fundamental economic freedom) have been considered and are found to be without merit. There
is no competent evidence that the statute is fraudulent. Further, the freedom to contract is not a
fundamental right.
Footnote 2: A suspect class has been
defined by the Supreme Court as a group of people "saddled with such disabilities, or subjected
to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political
powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process."
Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement, supra at 313, citing San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist.
V. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
Footnote 3: The defendant's reliance on
Ravin v. State is misplaced. In that case, the Alaska Supreme Court made clear (and
subsequent state decisions have emphasized as well) that its holding was based on its
interpretation of its own state's constitution, which affords its citizens a heightened right to
privacy in the home.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.