People v. Casey
| Decision Date | 16 June 1999 |
| Citation | 181 Misc.2d 744,698 N.Y.S.2d 404 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JOHN E. CASEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Legal Aid Society of Nassau County, Hempstead (Matthew Muraskin, Kent V. Moston and Tammy Feman of counsel), for appellant.
Denis E. Dillon, District Attorney of Nassau County, Mineola (Douglas Noll and Lawrence J. Schwarz of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment convicting defendant of criminal contempt in the second degree unanimously affirmed.
Judgment convicting defendant of criminal tampering in the third degree unanimously reversed on the law and facts and accusatory instrument dismissed.
Defendant contends that the accusatory instruments charging him with criminal contempt and criminal tampering are jurisdictionally defective. Initially, we note that defendant waived a reading of his rights at arraignment and the fact that he proceeded to trial constituted a waiver of the right to be prosecuted by informations (People v Connor, 63 NY2d 11). The failure to annex a copy of the order of protection to the purported information charging him with criminal contempt in the second degree renders it defective as an information because of its hearsay nature. However, the instrument contains a verified statement by Detective Daniel indicating the index number, date and source of the order of protection. More importantly, the accusatory instrument indicates that defendant was advised and served with a copy of the order of protection prior to the events which are the subject of the instant charges. The accusatory instrument qualifies as a misdemeanor complaint which sets forth reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the offense charged (CPL 100.40) and, therefore, the instrument is sufficient on its face.
We further find that the accusatory instrument charging defendant with criminal tampering is not jurisdictionally defective since it too contains allegations which provide reasonable cause to believe that he committed the offense charged (CPL 100.40). Contrary to defendant's contention, defendant's intent can be inferred from the act itself (People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301; People v McGee, 204 AD2d 353). Whether or not defendant caused "substantial inconvenience" (Penal Law § 145.14) to the complainant is a question of fact to be proven at trial.
Defendant contends that the court below should have suppressed his statement to the police regarding the instant charges made without counsel on December 9, 1996 because he was represented by counsel in a pending aggravated harassment charge relating to an incident that occurred in July 1996. While the instant charges and the aggravated harassment charge involve the same victim, the events occurred approximately five months apart and they are unrelated to one another. While defendant was represented by counsel on the prior aggravated harassment charge, this alone will not bar police from obtaining a voluntary and knowing waiver of the right to counsel by the accused in the absence of counsel on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Barrigar
...substantial inconvenience to another person or third person. In a case alleging Criminal Tampering in the Third Degree, the Court in People v. Casey held that intent may be inferred from an act itself and a determination as to whether such actions caused substantial inconvenience is a quest......
-
People v. Fernandez
...since defendant waived the right to be prosecuted by information, it was not jurisdictionally defective ( People v. Casey, 181 Misc.2d 744, 745, 698 N.Y.S.2d 404 [App.Term 2d Dept.1999], citing People v. Connor, 63 N.Y.2d 11, 479 N.Y.S.2d 197, 468 N.E.2d 35 [1984] ). We upheld defendant's c......
-
People v. Barrigar
...substantial inconvenience to another person or third person. In a case alleging Criminal Tampering in the Third Degree, the Court in People v Casey held that intent may be inferred from an act itself and a determination as to whether such actions caused substantial inconvenience is a questi......
-
People v. Casey
...arguments that the District Court information was jurisdictionally defective and that his statements to the police were inadmissible (181 Misc 2d 744). Defendant's primary point, raised for the first time before the Appellate Term, is that the District Court information charging him with cr......