People v. Case, 42 N.Y.2d 86 (1977)
When an information charging harassment lacks specific statutory subsection details but includes factual details describing a violation’s elements, it provides sufficient due process notice to the defendant.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether an information charging the defendant with harassment was sufficient, despite not specifying a subsection of the harassment statute. The Court held that the information was sufficient because the factual allegations provided enough detail to describe the elements of a harassment violation, thus giving the defendant adequate notice as required by due process. The Court reasoned that the factual allegations referred to a specific incident where the defendant allegedly struck the victim with a pipe, thus satisfying the notice requirement.
Facts
The information charged the defendant with both assault and harassment, but didn’t specify the subsection of Penal Law § 240.25 pertaining to harassment. The supporting factual allegations described a specific incident where the defendant allegedly struck the complaining witness with a length of pipe.
Procedural History
The defendant challenged the sufficiency of the information. The lower courts ruled against the defendant, and the case reached the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether an information charging harassment, without specifying a subsection of Penal Law § 240.25, is sufficient if it includes factual allegations detailing the elements of a harassment violation.
Holding
Yes, because when a general reference to the charge of harassment is accompanied by factual detail sufficient to describe the elements of a violation of any subsection of that statute, a defendant has received all the notice that due process requires.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on its prior holding in People v. Todaro, stating that factual details accompanying a general harassment charge can provide sufficient notice if they describe the elements of a statutory violation. The Court reasoned that the factual allegations in this case referred to a “specific and well-defined incident” where the defendant allegedly struck the victim with a pipe, an act that falls under Penal Law § 240.25, subd. 1. While acknowledging that harassment is not a lesser included offense of assault, the Court noted the “intimate relation” between the two offenses. Therefore, the same factual allegations could form the basis of an information for either offense under the circumstances. The Court cited People v. Grimes, emphasizing this close relationship. The court emphasized that the key is whether the defendant received adequate notice to prepare a defense.