People v. Casey, 47 N.Y.2d 966 (1979)

For an information to be facially sufficient, it must allege every element of the offense charged and the defendant’s commission of that offense; failure to specify an essential element renders the conviction jurisdictionally defective.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed a County Court order and dismissed an information charging the defendant with harassment. The information was deemed facially insufficient because it failed to allege that the defendant’s actions were done “with intent to harass, annoy or alarm,” an essential element of the crime of harassment under Penal Law § 240.25. The Court held that the omission of this element rendered the information jurisdictionally defective, as it did not adequately state the crime with which the defendant was charged.

Facts

The information alleged that the defendant, Casey, indicated that he wanted the complainant to leave his premises. It further stated that Casey “did strike, shove and otherwise subject [the complainant] to physical contact and threatened * * * physical harm.” This was the full extent of the factual allegations supporting the charge of harassment.

Procedural History

The case originated in a lower court where Casey was convicted of harassment. The County Court upheld the conviction. Casey then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that the information was facially insufficient.

Issue(s)

Whether an information charging harassment is facially sufficient when it fails to allege that the defendant acted “with intent to harass, annoy or alarm,” as required by Penal Law § 240.25.

Holding

No, because the absence of an allegation regarding the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy, or alarm renders the information jurisdictionally defective, as it fails to specify an essential element of the crime.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized the fundamental requirement that an information must state the crime charged and the particular facts constituting that crime. Citing prior cases, the court stated, “It is a fundamental and nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite that an information state the crime with which the defendant is charged and the particular facts constituting that crime.” The court noted that CPL 100.40, subd 1, par [c]; 100.15, subd 3 requires that every element of the offense and the defendant’s commission of it must be alleged for an information to be sufficient on its face.

The court found that the information against Casey was deficient because it did not allege that his actions were done “with intent to harass, annoy or alarm,” which is an essential element of harassment under Penal Law § 240.25. The court reasoned that without such an allegation, the acts complained of did not constitute criminal conduct. As the court stated, “Absent such an allegation, the acts complained of did not constitute criminal conduct and, hence, defendant’s conviction was jurisdictionally defective.” Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the County Court’s order and dismissed the information against Casey.