New York Law Review

Tag: Sufficiency of Information

  • People v. Motley, 69 N.Y.2d 870 (1987): Sufficiency of Information Charging Promotion of Prison Contraband

    People v. Motley, 69 N.Y.2d 870 (1987)

    An information charging a correction officer with promoting prison contraband is sufficient if it alleges the elements of the crime and the particular facts establishing its commission, even if the regulation defining the contraband applies to visitation rather than the officer’s conduct.

    Summary

    Motley, a correction officer, was charged with promoting prison contraband for selling whiskey to an inmate. The information did not specify which regulation defined whiskey as contraband. The Recorder’s Court dismissed the information, arguing that the ‘Standards for Inmate Behavior’ had not been properly filed. The County Court reinstated the information, finding 7 NYCRR former § 200.5(d), which prohibits visitors from giving alcohol to inmates, sufficient. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the information was sufficient because the visitation regulation defined whiskey as contraband, regardless of whether the regulation directly applied to correction officers. The Court emphasized that the information must state every element of the crime and provide notice to the defendant.

    Facts

    Defendant Motley, a correction officer at Elmira Correctional Facility, was accused of selling whiskey to an inmate.

    The information charging Motley did not specify the particular regulation that defined whiskey as contraband.

    Motley moved to dismiss, arguing that the “Standards for Inmate Behavior,” which he believed to be the relevant regulation, had not been properly filed with the Secretary of State.

    Procedural History

    The Recorder’s Court granted Motley’s motion to dismiss the information.

    The County Court reversed, reinstating the information.

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the County Court’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether an information charging a correction officer with promoting prison contraband is jurisdictionally defective if it relies on a regulation applicable to inmate visitation, rather than one specifically governing the conduct of correction officers.

    Holding

    No, because the statute only requires that the item be identified as contraband by the official action described, regardless of to whom the regulation is directed.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that an information is sufficient if it states every element of the crime and the particular facts establishing the defendant’s commission of it. The Court cited CPL 100.40(1)(c) and 100.15(3), as well as People v. Hall, 48 NY2d 927, People v. Case, 42 NY2d 98, 99, and People v. Harper, 37 NY2d 96, 99. The purpose of this requirement is to provide notice to the defendant and to prevent reprosecution, citing People v. McGuire, 5 NY2d 523, 526.

    The Court found that the visitation regulation, 7 NYCRR former § 200.5(d), which prohibits visitors from giving alcohol to inmates, was sufficient to define whiskey as contraband. The Court stated, “That the regulation applied to visitation and not the behavior of inmates or correction officers is immaterial: the statute only requires that whiskey be identified as contraband by the official action described.”

    The Court addressed Motley’s argument that a correction officer would not think to examine the visitation regulations, stating that his potential ignorance of the regulation would only affect the prosecution’s claim that he acted knowingly, not the validity of the information itself.

    The Court distinguished this case from situations where the information fails to allege all the elements of the crime. Here, the information properly alleged a crime because it charged the defendant with selling an item identified as contraband by a regulation.

  • People v. Case, 42 N.Y.2d 86 (1977): Sufficiency of Information Charging Harassment

    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.