Summary
In People v Miles (64 NY2d 731 [1984]), in an information charging the defendant with issuing a bad check, it was alleged in language that essentially repeated the language of the statute, that at the time he uttered the check he knew he had insufficient funds and that he believed or intended that payment would be refused.
Summary of this case from People v. PolianskaiaOpinion
Decided December 20, 1984
Appeal from the Steuben County Court, Henry J. Scudder, J., Burke, J.
Kevin P. Bradley for appellant.
Larry D. Bates, District Attorney ( Joseph E. Damrath of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of County Court, Steuben County, should be affirmed.
Defendant was charged by misdemeanor information with issuing a bad check in violation of subdivision 1 of section 190.05 of the Penal Law. On his appeal, he alleges that the information is jurisdictionally defective because it does not "contain a statement of the complainant alleging facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charges" (CPL 100.15, subd 3) that at the time he uttered the check he knew he had insufficient funds and that he believed or intended that payment would be refused.
It is undisputed that the information states the nonwaivable jurisdictional predicate to a valid criminal prosecution, i.e., the offense with which defendant is charged, each element thereof and that defendant committed it (see People v Hall, 48 N.Y.2d 927, 928; People v Case, 42 N.Y.2d 98, 99; see, also, CPL 100.40, subd 1). Contrary to defendant's contention, the information also sets forth sufficient evidentiary facts by alleging that defendant knew of his insufficient funds and intended or believed payment would be refused. This fulfilled the twofold purpose of an information, which is to inform defendant of the nature of the charge and the acts constituting it so that he may prepare for trial and protect himself from being tried again for the same offense (see CPL 100.15, subd 3; People v McGuire, 5 N.Y.2d 523, 526). The People's proof on these issues was properly left for trial. People v Shapiro ( 61 N.Y.2d 880) is not to the contrary. The information in that case contained a mere five-word factual allegation that defendant failed to keep left and omitted the essential allegation that the driver's view was obstructed so as to create a hazard (see Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1125, subd [a], par 1).
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.