People v. Inserra, 9 N.Y.3d 30 (2007)
A defendant’s signature on an order of protection is sufficient to infer knowledge of the order’s contents for the purposes of a criminal contempt charge.
Summary
Inserra was convicted of criminal contempt for violating an order of protection. The information alleged that his name appeared on the signature line of the order. The Appellate Term reversed, finding this insufficient to establish knowledge of the order’s contents. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a defendant’s signature on the signature line of an order of protection is sufficient to allege knowledge of its contents, fulfilling an essential element of criminal contempt. The Court reasoned that the signature implies awareness of the order’s terms, which are typically written clearly and concisely.
Facts
Inserra was subject to an order of protection directing him to stay away from his ex-girlfriend and her home, school, business, and place of employment and to refrain from assaulting, stalking, or harassing her. The People presented evidence that Inserra banged on the protected person’s apartment door, shouting and demanding to be admitted, violating the order. The sworn deposition of the police officer stated that he “examined a copy of [the] o[r]der of protection and that the defendant’s name appears on the line for the defendant’s signature.”
Procedural History
A Queens County Criminal Court jury found Inserra guilty of second-degree criminal contempt. Inserra appealed to the Appellate Term, arguing the information failed to allege he had knowledge of the order’s terms. The Appellate Term reversed the conviction and dismissed the information. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which reversed the Appellate Term’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant’s name on the signature line of an order of protection adequately supports an allegation that the defendant knew of the order’s contents for the purposes of a charge of criminal contempt.
Holding
Yes, because defendant’s name on the signature line sufficiently alleges that defendant received and read the terms of the order of protection, enabling an inference that he was aware of its contents.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the factual allegations must establish, if true, every element of the crime charged and the defendant’s commission of each. The Court distinguished this case from People v. McCowan, where the defendant was merely informed that “an order” had been issued against him. Here, Inserra’s signature on the order’s signature line suggests he received and read the terms of the order. The Court stated, “defendant’s name on the signature line of the order enables us to infer that he was aware of its contents, which are written on a single page in simple language and clear, legible type.”
The Court emphasized the pleading standard, stating that, based on the officer’s deposition, the allegations, if true, were sufficient to establish that Inserra violated each element of the crime charged, including his knowledge of the order of protection’s contents. The Court also rejected Inserra’s argument that the information failed to allege a violation by omitting a statement that the protected person was at home when Inserra banged on the door, noting the order prohibited Inserra from going near the protected person’s home, whether or not she was present. The dissent is not discussed as there was none.