Lexplug logoLexplug

People v. Wood

New York Court of Appeals
719 N.Y.S.2d 639, 95 N.Y.2d 509, 742 N.E.2d 114 (2000)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a subsequent criminal prosecution for contempt based on the same conduct that resulted in a prior family court contempt adjudication, even if the prosecutions are based on violating orders from two different courts.


Facts:

  • Defendant Timothy Wood's ex-wife obtained a protective order from Rochester City Court prohibiting him from having any contact with her.
  • Subsequently, the ex-wife obtained a second, separate protective order from Monroe County Family Court, also directing the defendant to have no contact with her.
  • In the early morning of December 25, 1996, the ex-wife received 11 prank telephone calls where the caller hung up immediately.
  • Five of these telephone calls were traced back to the defendant's residence.
  • These specific phone calls constituted a simultaneous violation of the terms of both the City Court order and the Family Court order.

Procedural Posture:

  • The victim commenced a contempt proceeding in Family Court for violation of the Family Court order of protection.
  • Family Court found the defendant guilty of willful violation and sentenced him to six months incarceration.
  • The defendant was subsequently indicted in a criminal court for First Degree Criminal Contempt and Aggravated Harassment based on the violation of the City Court order.
  • The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on Double Jeopardy grounds.
  • The Supreme Court (trial court) denied the motion to dismiss.
  • A jury found the defendant guilty of all counts.
  • The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division.
  • The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment on Double Jeopardy grounds.
  • A Judge of the Court of Appeals granted the People (prosecution) leave to appeal.

Locked

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 the Double Jeopardy Clause bar the prosecution of a defendant for criminal contempt for violating a city court order of protection when the defendant has already been adjudicated and punished in family court for violating a separate family court order based on the exact same underlying conduct?


Opinions:

Majority - Wesley

Yes, the Court held that the subsequent criminal prosecution is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because the defendant is being punished twice for the same offense. The Court applied the 'Blockburger' test, which determines if two offenses are the 'same' by asking whether each statutory provision requires proof of a fact that the other does not. Here, the Court found that the contempt provision under the Family Court Act is effectively a lesser included offense of First Degree Criminal Contempt under the Penal Law. First Degree Criminal Contempt requires a prior conviction and a violation of an order, while Family Court contempt essentially requires only the violation. Because the elements overlap and the defendant's single act (making the phone calls) violated both orders simultaneously, prosecuting him a second time constitutes double jeopardy. The Court rejected the argument that the existence of two separate court orders created two separate offenses, noting that if the origin of the order were the only distinguishing factor, constitutional protections would be eviscerated.



Analysis:

This decision significantly impacts the intersection of family law and criminal law, particularly in domestic violence cases. While New York law was designed to give victims concurrent jurisdiction—allowing them to seek relief in both Family Court and Criminal Court—this ruling clarifies the constitutional limits of that system. It establishes that while a victim can possess orders from multiple courts, the state cannot impose cumulative punishments (incarceration) for a single act that violates both orders. This forces prosecutors and victims to be strategic about which venue to pursue for punishment, as a contempt adjudication in Family Court (which is civil in name but punitive in nature) will preclude a subsequent criminal prosecution for the same behavior.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: People v. Wood (2000)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"