People v. Tannenbaum, 27 N.Y.2d 753 (1970)
When a substantive criminal statute is declared unconstitutional, the decision has retroactive effect, meaning a conviction under that statute cannot stand because the defendant committed no crime.
Summary
The defendant, Tannenbaum, was convicted under section 484-i of the former New York Penal Law. The Supreme Court subsequently declared this statute unconstitutional in Rabeck v. New York. This case addresses whether that declaration of unconstitutionality should apply retroactively to Tannenbaum’s conviction. The New York Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rabeck must be applied retroactively to Tannenbaum’s conviction. The court reasoned that declaring a statute unconstitutional means the defendant committed no crime, thus the conviction cannot stand.
Facts
Tannenbaum was convicted of violating section 484-i of the former New York Penal Law. This conviction was initially upheld by the New York Court of Appeals. Tannenbaum appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot.
Procedural History
1. Tannenbaum was convicted under section 484-i of the former New York Penal Law.
2. The New York Court of Appeals initially sustained the conviction.
3. The Supreme Court of the United States dismissed Tannenbaum’s appeal as moot.
4. The Supreme Court then held section 484-i to be unconstitutional in Rabeck v. New York.
5. The New York Court of Appeals granted Tannenbaum’s motion for reargument in light of Rabeck.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Rabeck v. New York, which declared section 484-i of the former New York Penal Law unconstitutional, should be applied retroactively to Tannenbaum’s conviction under that same statute.
Holding
Yes, because declaring a substantive criminal statute unconstitutional means that the defendant has committed no crime, and therefore, the conviction cannot stand.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the Supreme Court’s decision in Rabeck v. New York, which declared section 484-i unconstitutional, must be applied retroactively. The core reasoning is that a declaration of unconstitutionality in a substantive criminal statute means that the defendant has, in effect, committed no crime. The court distinguished this situation from cases involving rules of criminal procedure, where retroactivity is not always required. The court stated, “Where a substantive criminal statute has been held unconstitutional, there is no alternative but to give the decision retroactive effect for the declaration of unconstitutionality is a statement that the defendant has committed no crime.” The court further noted that if Tannenbaum were currently imprisoned, he would be entitled to habeas corpus relief. The court emphasized the fundamental difference between substantive law and procedural rules in the context of retroactivity, stating that invalidating the statute negates the crime itself.