People v. Kalin
12 N.Y.3d 225, 906 N.E.2d 381 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A misdemeanor information sufficiently establishes a prima facie case for drug possession when a police officer alleges the identity of the substance based on their training and experience, coupled with contextual facts like packaging and paraphernalia. Such an information is not jurisdictionally defective, and any challenge to its sufficiency is forfeited by a guilty plea.
Facts:
- In January 2006, William Kalin was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by a New York City police officer for a faulty exhaust system.
- During the traffic stop, the officer recovered nine plastic bags containing a substance he believed to be heroin from the vehicle's center console.
- The officer also recovered a bag of what he believed to be marijuana from the center console.
- A marijuana pipe containing a quantity of marijuana was recovered from the glove compartment.
- Kalin and the other occupants of the vehicle were arrested for drug possession.
Procedural Posture:
- William Kalin was charged by misdemeanor complaint in New York City Criminal Court.
- At his arraignment, Kalin pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree in exchange for a sentence of time served.
- The trial court did not advise Kalin of his right to be prosecuted by a misdemeanor information.
- Kalin (as appellant) appealed to the Appellate Term, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Term reversed Kalin's conviction and dismissed the accusatory instrument, finding it jurisdictionally defective.
- The People (as appellant) were granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York.
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 misdemeanor information that identifies a substance as a controlled drug based on an officer's training and experience, but without describing the substance's physical appearance, fail to establish a prima facie case and is therefore jurisdictionally defective?
Opinions:
Majority - Graffeo, J.
No. The information is not jurisdictionally defective because it provided sufficient notice of the charges. The prima facie case requirement for an information is not the same as the burden of proof at trial; its purpose is to provide the accused with notice sufficient to prepare a defense and to prevent double jeopardy. Here, the officer's conclusion that the substance was heroin was based on his training and experience, the packaging of the substance in nine separate bags, and the presence of other drug paraphernalia. This is sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Requiring a formulaic recitation of the substance's physical appearance would extend pleading standards beyond the legislature's intent. To the extent the prior holding in Matter of Jahron S. suggests otherwise, that portion of the holding is modified. Because the information was not jurisdictionally defective, Kalin forfeited his right to challenge its sufficiency by entering a guilty plea.
Dissenting - Ciparick, J.
Yes. The charging instrument fails to establish a prima facie case and is therefore jurisdictionally defective. This case is governed by the precedent set in Matter of Jahron S., which held that an officer's conclusory allegation identifying a substance based on training and experience was insufficient. An information must contain nonhearsay allegations establishing every element of the offense, and failure to do so is a jurisdictional defect that is not forfeited by a guilty plea. The majority's decision effectively overrules Jahron S. and removes important procedural protections for misdemeanor defendants without placing any significant burden on the prosecution, who could easily add a few descriptive words or details about the officer's specific training.
Analysis:
This decision relaxes the pleading standard for drug possession in misdemeanor informations, modifying the precedent from Matter of Jahron S. The court prioritized the core functions of a charging instrument—providing notice for defense and preventing double jeopardy—over requiring formulaic, descriptive language from officers. This ruling strengthens the finality of guilty pleas by narrowing the scope of what constitutes a 'jurisdictional defect' that can be challenged on appeal post-plea. Consequently, it will be more difficult for defendants to succeed on appeal by challenging the factual specificity of an accusatory instrument after they have already pleaded guilty.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Kalin