People v. Dietze, 68 N.Y.2d 128 (1986)

A single instance of speech, even if offensive, does not constitute a “course of conduct” or “repeatedly commits acts” sufficient to establish harassment under Penal Law § 240.25(5).

Summary

Dietze was convicted of harassment for a single public statement made while picketing. He pointed to a union official and declared, “There is the corruption I am talking about… and there is one of the corrupt ones.” The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that this single instance of speech did not meet the statutory requirement of a “course of conduct” or “repeatedly commits acts” needed to prove harassment under Penal Law § 240.25(5). The court emphasized that the statute requires more than an isolated incident.

Facts

Dietze was picketing across the street from a union headquarters.

As a union official exited the building, Dietze pointed at him and loudly stated, “There is the corruption I am talking about… and there is one of the corrupt ones.”

This statement formed the basis of the harassment charge.

Procedural History

Dietze was convicted of harassment under Penal Law § 240.25(5) in the Ontario County Court.

The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Ontario County Court’s order, vacated the conviction, and dismissed the accusatory instrument.

Issue(s)

Whether a single public statement, even if critical or accusatory, constitutes a “course of conduct” or “repeatedly commits acts” sufficient to establish harassment under Penal Law § 240.25(5).

Holding

No, because Penal Law § 240.25(5) requires proof of either a “course of conduct” or the repeated commission of acts, and a single statement does not satisfy either requirement.

Court’s Reasoning

The court focused on the statutory language of Penal Law § 240.25(5), which requires either a “course of conduct” or that the accused “repeatedly commits acts.” The court reasoned that Dietze’s single statement, while perhaps annoying or alarming to the union official, did not meet the threshold of either a course of conduct or repeated acts.

The court cited People v. Otto, 40 NY2d 864, emphasizing that the violation of harassment was not established beyond a reasonable doubt based on the facts presented. The court determined that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the statute beyond a reasonable doubt.

The ruling implies that the statute is intended to address persistent behavior, not isolated incidents. To secure a conviction under this statute, prosecutors must demonstrate a pattern of behavior, indicating more than one instance of harassing conduct.