People v. Henry
| Decision Date | 06 March 1996 |
| Citation | 167 Misc.2d 1027,641 N.Y.S.2d 1003 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Bradley HENRY, Defendant. |
| Court | New York District Court |
Defendant is charged by way of superseding informations filed with the Court under the three docket numbers involved. Each docket charges defendant with one count of violating Penal Law § 215.50(3), Criminal Contempt, Second Degree and one count of violating Penal Law § 240.30(1), Aggravated Harassment, Second Degree.
The defendant now moves this Court, by two separate motions, for an order pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30, 170.35, 100.15 and 100.40, dismissing each count charging a violation of Penal Law § 215.50(3) on the ground that the accusatory instruments are facially insufficient and defective in that they fail to contain non-hearsay allegations which, if true, would establish every element of the offense charged, a predicate element to a facially insufficient information (CPL § 100.40). In the interest of judicial economy, the Court will entertain the two motions as if they were one and render its decision with respect to each of the three counts at issue.
Defendant argues that two documents attached to and made a part of each instrument must be ignored by the Court in determining the facial sufficiency of the instruments because the documents, not having been "subscribed and verified" by a person, do not rise to the level of supporting depositions as defined by CPL § 100.20. Therefore, the defendant reasons the Court, looking only to the factual part of the accusatory paper and not to the supporting documents, should find the instruments facially insufficient as informations, pursuant to CPL § 100.40, and that they must be dismissed.
The documents in question are a copy of an order of protection against the defendant issued by Judge Hubsher of the Criminal Court of New York City, Kings County and stenographic minutes subscribed and certified by the stenographer to be a true and accurate transcript of the proceedings taken of the sentencing proceeding at which time the order of protection was issued. Defendant's motion presents two questions for the Court. (1) Can the Court look to supporting documents, other than supporting depositions, when determining the facial sufficiency of an accusatory instrument; (2) If the Court can look to other supporting documents, do the accusatory papers in the instant action, taken as a whole, constitute facially sufficient informations pursuant to CPL § 100.40 upon which the People may prosecute an action?
In answering the first question, it is obvious that the documents are not "supporting depositions" as that term is commonly used, but rather, public records of court proceedings involving the defendant supporting the allegations of the complainant as stated in the instrument. That fact, however, does not preclude the Court from examining the documents and incorporating them into the instrument.
An information is sufficient on its face when it complies with the requirements of CPL § 100.40. The necessary elements include: (1) substantial conformity to CPL § 100.15 in form and content; (2) allegations in the factual part of the information and/or any supporting depositions that establish reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the offense charged; and (3) non-hearsay allegations in the information and/or any supporting depositions that would establish, if true, every element of the offense charged, or in other words, establish a prima facie case. People v. Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133, 517 N.Y.S.2d 927, 511 N.E.2d 71 (1987).
"Hearsay," as that term is used under the statute, is hearsay that is not admissible at trial. Hearsay evidence that comes under a recognized exception to the hearsay rule, and as such would be admissible at trial, must be considered non-hearsay evidence. People v. Fields, 74 Misc.2d 109, 344 N.Y.S.2d 413 (Nassau County 1st Dist., 1973). Business records and court records, as exceptions to the hearsay rule, are appropriately utilized to supplement and corroborate hearsay allegations in a complaint, thereby converting such complaint into a valid information upon which the People may prosecute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hart, CR-2182-19
...of the proceeding at which the order was issued, which is admissible as business records and public documents ( People v. Henry, 167 Misc. 2d 1027, 641 N.Y.S.2d 1003 [Dist. Ct., Nassau County, 1996] ); and the defendant's own self-incriminating oral statements made to a deponent officer, ad......
-
People v. Davis
...of the proceeding at which the order was issued, which is admissible as business records and public documents (People v. Henry, 167 Misc.2d 1027, 641 N.Y.S.2d 1003 [Dist. Ct., Nassau County, 1996] ); and the defendant's own self-incriminating oral statements made to a deponent officer, admi......
-
People v. Davis
...of the proceeding at which the order was issued, which is admissible as business records and public documents ( People v. Henry, 167 Misc 2d 1027, 641 N.Y.S.2d 1003 [Dist. Ct., Nassau County, 1996]); and the defendant's own self-incriminating oral statements made to a deponent officer, admi......
-
People v. Garcia
...content of the Family Court Order of Custody into its assessment of the facial sufficiency of the Information. E.g., People v. Henry, 167 Misc.2d 1027, 641 N.Y.S.2d 1003 (Dist.Ct., Nassau County, 1996) (court considered order of protection filed along with complaint); People v. Eastmond, 19......