People v. Hicks, 61 N.Y.2d 732 (1984)

A misdemeanor information is sufficient if it states the offense, each element thereof, that the defendant committed it, and sets forth sufficient evidentiary facts to support the charges, allowing the defendant to prepare for trial and avoid double jeopardy.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the County Court’s order, holding that the misdemeanor information charging the defendant with issuing a bad check was jurisdictionally sufficient. The information adequately stated the offense, each element of the offense, and that the defendant committed it. Furthermore, the information provided sufficient evidentiary facts by alleging that the defendant knew of insufficient funds and intended or believed payment would be refused. This provided the defendant with adequate notice and protection against being tried again for the same offense, leaving the People’s specific proof for trial.

Facts

The defendant was charged with issuing a bad check, a misdemeanor, in violation of New York Penal Law § 190.05(1).

The defendant argued that the information was jurisdictionally defective because it lacked a statement alleging evidentiary facts supporting the charges that he knew he had insufficient funds and believed or intended that payment would be refused when he issued the check.

Procedural History

The case originated in a lower court where the defendant was charged via a misdemeanor information.

The defendant appealed to the County Court, Steuben County, challenging the sufficiency of the information.

The County Court’s order was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the misdemeanor information charging the defendant with issuing a bad check was jurisdictionally defective because it lacked a sufficient statement of evidentiary facts supporting the charge that the defendant knew he had insufficient funds and believed or intended that payment would be refused.

Holding

No, because the information stated the offense, each element of the offense, and that the defendant committed it, and it set forth sufficient evidentiary facts alleging that the defendant knew of his insufficient funds and intended or believed payment would be refused.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the information stated the nonwaivable jurisdictional predicate to a valid criminal prosecution, namely, the offense with which the defendant was charged, each element thereof, and that the defendant committed it. The court found that the information also set forth sufficient evidentiary facts by alleging the defendant knew of insufficient funds and intended or believed payment would be refused. This fulfilled the twofold purpose of an information: (1) to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge and the acts constituting it so he may prepare for trial, and (2) to protect him from being tried again for the same offense.

The court distinguished this case from People v. Shapiro, stating that Shapiro involved an information with a mere five-word factual allegation that omitted an essential element of the offense. In this case, the information adequately alleged the necessary elements and supporting facts. The Court emphasized that the People’s specific proof on the issues of knowledge and intent was properly left for trial, with the information providing adequate notice to the defendant.

The court emphasized, “It is undisputed that the information states the nonwaivable jurisdictional predicate to a valid criminal prosecution, i.e., the offense with which defendant is charged, each element thereof and that defendant committed it.”