# Jurisdictional Statement — Cruz v. New York > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_2123%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Jurisdictional Statement - **Published:** January 1, 1980 - **Citation:** 446 U.S. 901 ## Text Gupreme Court, U. FILED FEB 15 1980 79-6094 LERK “MICHAEL RODAK, JR., C IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1978 TERM NO. HECTOR CRUZ, Appellant, NEW YORK. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS TO: THE HONORABLE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: HECTOR CRUZ, appellant herein, respectfully applies for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in connection with the docketing of his appeal from a judgment of the New York Court of Appeals. Appellant's affidavit in support of the within application is annexed hereto. Dated: February 18, 1980 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, SH ee Chile Bev. e impaired the court in Peoole v. Graser, (supra) also upheld the 1" of a higher degree than this, the jury could determine that the defendant vas constitutionality of both subdivisions holding that impairment ant iil shail Meleiichieltiad meatal cnina é intoxication, creactud no problems, since V.T.L. 1195 provisec i . or the reasons quantitative standarés as to the degree of difference between pela Se ie cer aN that this dufinition the two terms. However, even this court recognized that without f : en impairment and intoxicafic to saet cue process requirements. a chemical test, the difference between ‘mpaizment and intoxication After tracing through the legislative history and all would become vague since V.T.L. 1195 would not lonces anolv. c-9 relevant cases, this court is convinced that V.7.L. 1192 sub= division 1 and 3, fail to ment due process requirements of the Pourteenth Amencment of the U.S. Constitution and Article one, Section six of tha New York Constitution. V.T.L. 1LI9S falls far short of providing any useful guideline to Catermine the distinctidn between impairment and intoxication. . hen a chemical test is not done, or not done properly, or just refused by the defendant, we ace left with the ancicnt Weaver definition. This proves to be no help as the term impairment is used to define the term intoxication. One undefined term is used to define another uncefined term, and the difference i decree between the two terms is left unclear. ‘The averase citizen is unable to éetarnine when his next erink will push him over the precipice from a violation for Lapairment to a violation for a crime of intoxication. These sections ase vague because men of common intelligence nust necessarily guess at their meanings and differ as to theiy applica- tions. A person is not able, from the facn of the statute, to know in advance whether his actions are criminal or not. ‘The statute thus violates the first essential of due precess of law. Pinally, the prosecution has questioned whether it is the euty of this court to make. findinss of constitutionality, or whethe= these matters should be best left to an appellate court (See Smith v. Schandel, $1 Misc.2d 628 (1959). ‘This court secognizes that a presumption exists, that a statute duly enacted by the legislature is constitutional (tcKkinney's Consolidated Laws of N.¥., Book 2, Constitution secticn 41) (See Peonle +. Pugnotta, 25 N.¥.2¢ 333 (1969). However, this court feels thet it has the obligation to rule on the constitutionality of statutes, especially where life and liberty are iavolved and whe the allege, infirmity of the statute is facially apparent. (See Peoole v. wollesste, §7 Misc.2¢ 236 (Sronx Co.) (1974), Peovle v. Tabh, 20 ttise.2¢ 431 (lew York Co.) (1975) . This court does not merely Serve as a resting stop cn the roac to the various appellate courts. I agree with the followine statement: “It is just as auch the duty of the court of first instance to declare invalid ane prevent clear viclations of the constitution by legislative enactment as it is the like duty of the court of last resort upon appeal, and this duty should not be evaded by the trial Suiee, by casting responsibility upon appella tribunals” (Zeople ex. Fel- Woean v. Rafferty, 77 Mise. 252 (1912) The infornation quaines: the defendant, Tector Cruz, is hereby disrissed. DATID: October 31, 1978 -. APPENDIX D ie pg. ... —_ REMTISTTTOR OF — rae TRE. MEE YORE. = - COURT OF APPEALS Remittitur | Court of Appeals State of Pew Bark The Hon. Lawrence H. Couke, Chief Judge, Presiding App T No. 465 The People &c., Appellant, vs. Hector Cruz, Respondent. The appellant(a) in the above entitled appeal appeared by Mario Merola, District Attorney, Bronx County; the respondent(x) appeared by William E. Hellerstein, The Legal Aid Society. The Court, after due deliberation, orders and adjudges that the order is reversed, the accusatory instrument reinstated and the case remitted to the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, for further pro- ceedings. Opinion by Wachtler, J. All concur. oa The Court further orders that the papers required quired to be filed and this record ceedings in this Court be remitted to the Criminal Court of the City of New oll Bronx County, ; : there to be proceeded upon according to law. I certify that the preceding contains a correct record of the proceedings in this the Court of Appeals and that the papers required to be filed are oniihed: ings in this appeal in \ ; wight Jaren — / ‘ | Joseph W. Bellacosa, Clerk of the Court Court of Appeals, Clerk's Office, Albany, rns. righ 19.29_. —_— ey some cate ee wae eae —— © Ot + ee ae ete ose + eae eee eee ee beeen“ en esate le — APPENDIX F NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ° CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK BRONX COUNTY —-——-— e- e S as SO 228 22222222 eee eeoeeoee2X HECTOR CRUZ, : Docket No. 802969 County Clerk's Appellant. : No. 48210/79 -against- : NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT NEW YORK. : OF THE UNITES STATES ee ee ae ae ae ee ee ee ee ee ee —— -—— xX SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that HECTOR CRUZ, the appellant above-named, hereby appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States from an order of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York entered on November 20, 1979, which reinstated the accusatory instrument charging appellant with violating §1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and remitted the case to the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, for further proceedings. This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1257(2). Dated: New York, New York January 28, 1980 FILED Yours, etc., THOMAS H. BUSCE WILLIAM E. HELLERSTEIN Attorneys for Appellant JAN 2 9 1980 15 Park Row - 18th Floor CRIMINAL Court New York, New York 10038 NEW YORK COUNTY APPEAL BUREAU --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_2123%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.