People v. Sanin
2025 NY Slip Op 25189
| New York County Court, Ulster ... | 2025Background
- Defendants Jamie Sanin and Charlie Liu Guillotin, former SUNY New Paltz students, were indicted for Criminal Mischief (Second Degree), Making Graffiti, and Possession of Graffiti Instruments after spray painting political messages such as "Your Tuition Funds Genocide" and "Free Gaza" on campus property.
- Their arrest was supported by surveillance evidence and circumstances (odor of spray paint, paint on clothing, recovery of spray cans).
- Defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, challenging Penal Law §145.60 on constitutional grounds and seeking dismissal of duplicative counts or, alternatively, to present a necessity defense.
- The prosecution opposed, maintaining the constitutionality and propriety of the charges.
- The court examined whether the indictments and statutes infringed on First Amendment rights, were vague or overbroad, or improperly denied a necessity defense.
Issues
| Issue | Sanin's Argument | People's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial constitutionality of PL §145.60 | Statute is overbroad/vague; chills political speech | Statute is content-neutral, not vague, targets intent to damage property | Statute is constitutional, not vague/overbroad |
| Application to defendants (as-applied) | Political speech is specially protected under 1st Amendment | Statute regulates conduct, not viewpoint or content | Statute constitutional as applied, content-neutral |
| Duplicativity of counts | Criminal Mischief and Making Graffiti are duplicative | Making Graffiti is a lesser included offense, both charges are proper | Counts are not duplicative; both charges permitted |
| Necessity defense | Conduct was justified to prevent greater harm abroad | Civil disobedience does not justify property damage under NY law | Necessity defense inapplicable; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Stuart, 100 N.Y.2d 412 (strong presumption of constitutionality for statutes)
- People v Marquan M., 24 N.Y.3d 1 (content-neutral statutes and overbreadth analysis)
- People v Vinolas, 174 Misc. 2d 740 (Making Graffiti does not require actual damage)
- People v Danaher, 115 A.D.2d 905 (intent as a factual question for the jury)
- Town of Islip v Caviglia, 73 N.Y.2d 544 (legitimate governmental interest in preventing urban blight)
- Heffron v International Socy. For Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640 (no absolute right to speech on all property)
- People v Craig, 78 N.Y.2d 616 (necessity defense not applicable to civil disobedience cases)