People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 894 (2000)
An information is properly verified under CPL 100.30(1)(b) when the complainant reads and signs the instrument in front of a desk officer, appreciating the significance of their actions, even without raising their hand and orally reciting an oath.
Summary
Casey was charged with petit larceny. The information was verified by the store detective who apprehended her. The detective signed the information in front of a police sergeant, but testified at trial that he did not “swear” to the contents by raising his hand and reciting an oath. The trial court, after a hearing, denied Casey’s motion to dismiss, but the Appellate Term reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Term, holding that a formal oral oath is not required for proper verification under CPL 100.30(1)(b), as long as the complainant understands the significance of signing the document under penalty of perjury.
Facts
A store detective apprehended Casey for shoplifting. He signed an information accusing her of petit larceny. The information included a jurat reading “Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25 day of May, 1994,” which was signed by a police sergeant. At trial, the detective testified that he signed the information but did not “swear” to its truth, leading Casey to move for dismissal based on improper verification.
Procedural History
The trial court found Casey guilty. After the verdict, a hearing was held regarding the validity of the verification. The trial court denied Casey’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument. The Appellate Term reversed the trial court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Term’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether an information is properly verified under CPL 100.30(1)(b) when the complainant signs the instrument in front of a desk officer, appreciating the significance of the action, but does not raise their hand and orally recite an oath.
Holding
Yes, because CPL 100.30(1)(b) only requires that the information be “sworn to before a desk officer” and does not mandate a formal oral oath. It is sufficient if the complainant reads and signs the document knowing it is a legal document and that they can be subject to the penalty of perjury for false statements.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that CPL 100.30(1)(b) requires verification before a desk officer, but it does not specify the need for an oral oath. The Court emphasized that the complainant understood he was signing a legal document under penalty of perjury. The court cited People v. Stewart, 92 NY2d 965 and Matter of Edward B., 80 NY2d 458 to support their holding. The court stated, “There is no additional requirement that complainant raise his hand and orally recite an oath. It was sufficient for him to read and sign the instrument in front of the officer, appreciating the significance of his actions.” This highlights a practical approach: the key is the complainant’s understanding of the document’s legal significance, not the performance of a ritualistic oath. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of verification, which is to ensure the reliability of the information presented to the court. The court’s decision avoids imposing a hyper-technical requirement that could invalidate otherwise valid informations.