People v. Casey
95 N.Y.2d 354, 740 N.E.2d 233, 717 N.Y.S.2d 88 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defect in a local criminal court information consisting of hearsay allegations, which violates the statutory requirement for non-hearsay allegations, is not a jurisdictional defect and is therefore waived if not challenged by the defendant in a timely pretrial motion.
Facts:
- A Temporary Order of Protection was issued by the Nassau County District Court against defendant Casey in connection with a pending harassment charge.
- On August 15, 1996, Casey was served with the order in court.
- On the evening of December 2, 1996, Casey allegedly engaged in conduct that violated the terms of the order.
- A police detective investigated the reported violation.
- During an initial phone call with the detective, Casey confirmed that he was the person who had been served with the order in court.
- On December 9, 1996, Casey surrendered at police headquarters, where he was advised of his Miranda rights and gave oral and written statements impliedly admitting to the acts that allegedly violated the order.
Procedural Posture:
- Casey was charged in Nassau County District Court (trial court) with criminal contempt in the second degree.
- The trial court denied Casey's motion to suppress statements he made to the police.
- Following a trial, a jury found Casey guilty of the charge.
- Casey, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Term (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed his conviction.
- A Judge of the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) granted Casey leave to appeal from the Appellate Term's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a local criminal court information containing a hearsay allegation of an element of the charged offense, in violation of CPL 100.40(1)(c), constitute a non-waivable jurisdictional defect that can be raised for the first time on appeal?
Opinions:
Majority - Levine, J.
No. A local criminal court information containing a hearsay allegation does not constitute a non-waivable jurisdictional defect. The court held that while the failure to allege every element of an offense is a fundamental, jurisdictional defect that can be raised at any time, a defect based on the inclusion of hearsay is a formal error that is waived unless preserved through a timely pretrial motion. The court reasoned that this approach aligns with pre-CPL jurisprudence, which treated hearsay defects as waivable matters of form rather than substance. Furthermore, the legislative intent of the CPL was to relax, not tighten, pleading requirements, and the CPL expressly allows for hearsay defects to be cured by amendment. This distinguishes such defects from non-curable, fundamental errors that constitute a 'mode of proceedings' error.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of what constitutes a non-waivable 'jurisdictional' defect in a misdemeanor information, distinguishing the fundamental error of omitting an element of the crime from the waivable error of including hearsay. By doing so, the court reinforces the preservation rule, requiring defendants to raise curable pleading errors at the trial level. This prevents defendants from strategically ignoring a correctable error and raising it for the first time on appeal after an unfavorable verdict, thereby promoting judicial economy and finality.
