From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hall

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 13, 1979
48 N.Y.2d 927 (N.Y. 1979)

Summary

In Hall, the nature of the dynamic between the defendant and the complainant during the course of the incident that gave rise to the charge was somewhat murky, and the complainant's personal belief as to whether the defendant had the "intent to harass, annoy or alarm" (Penal Law § 240.26) would have been illuminating.

Summary of this case from People v. Dreyden

Opinion

Argued November 16, 1979

Decided December 13, 1979

Appeal from the Cortland County Court, CHARLES J. MULLEN, J., DONALD F. EATON, J.

David W. Perfetti for appellant.

Robert F. Jones, District Attorney (Karen F. McGee of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the County Court should be reversed and the information dismissed.

It is a fundamental and nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite that an information state the crime with which the defendant is charged and the particular facts constituting that crime (People v Case, 42 N.Y.2d 98, 99; People v Harper, 37 N.Y.2d 96, 99; People v McGuire, 5 N.Y.2d 523, 525). In order for an information to be sufficient on its face, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof must be alleged (CPL 100.40, subd 1, par [c]; 100.15, subd 3).

Here the information charging harassment recited only that defendant, who it also alleges indicated that his desire was that the complainant leave the defendant's premises, "did strike, shove and otherwise subject [the complainant] to physical contact and threatened * * * physical harm." It failed to specify an essential element of the crime, which is that the acts be done "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm" (Penal Law, § 240.25). Absent such an allegation, the acts complained of did not constitute criminal conduct and, hence, defendant's conviction was jurisdictionally defective (see People v Case, supra; People v McGuire, supra).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

People v. Hall

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 13, 1979
48 N.Y.2d 927 (N.Y. 1979)

In Hall, the nature of the dynamic between the defendant and the complainant during the course of the incident that gave rise to the charge was somewhat murky, and the complainant's personal belief as to whether the defendant had the "intent to harass, annoy or alarm" (Penal Law § 240.26) would have been illuminating.

Summary of this case from People v. Dreyden

In Hall, the defendant was charged with harassment in an information that "recited only that defendant, who it also alleges indicated that his desire was that the complainant leave the defendant's premises, did strike, shove and otherwise subject the complainant to physical contact and threatened... physical harm'" (48 NY2d at 927-928 [internal brackets omitted]).

Summary of this case from People v. Jackson

In People v Hall (48 N.Y.2d 927-928 [1979]), the Court of Appeals dismissed an information charging harassment where it was alleged that the defendant "`did strike, shove and otherwise subject [the complainant] to physical contact and threatened * * * physical harm'" but failed to specify that the conduct was done with "`intent to harass, annoy or alarm'".

Summary of this case from People v. Simon
Case details for

People v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES HALL, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 13, 1979

Citations

48 N.Y.2d 927 (N.Y. 1979)
425 N.Y.S.2d 56
401 N.E.2d 179

Citing Cases

People v. Jackson

Further, the facts set forth in the information sufficiently allege that defendant acted with the requisite…

People v. Thomas

A defendant may move to dismiss an accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL §170.30(1)(a), 170.35(1)(a),…