Opinion · New York Court of Appeals

People v. Dozier

People v. Dozier, 52 N.Y.2d 781 (New York Court of Appeals 1980)

Type: Opinion
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Date: 1980-12-18
Topic: litigation

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. *783We agree with the Appellate Division that the Legislature did not act unreasonably when it fixed the age of female consent at 17 years, as opposed to some other, presumably younger, age. However we express no opinion with respect to the other claims of unconstitutionality urged by the defendant and discussed in the Appellate Division opinion, namely, the contention that the statute unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sex or that it violates due process by eliminating the mens rea element. Those issues were not properly raised in the trial court and thus are beyond our review. Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur; Judge Meyer concurs in result.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Dozier. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 17 opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*783 We agree with the Appellate Division that the Legislature did not act unreasonably when it fixed the age of female consent at 17 years, as opposed to some other, presumably younger, age. However we express no opinion with respect to the other claims of unconstitutionality urged by the defendant and discussed in the Appellate Division opinion, namely, the contention that the statute unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sex or that it violates due process by eliminating the mens rea element. Those issues were not properly raised in the trial court and thus are beyond our review.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur; Judge Meyer concurs in result.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.