concluding that an information that “contained no allegation[s] [to] support[] an essential element of the charge” was properly dismissed
How later courts described this case
- concluding that an information that “contained no allegation[s] [to] support[] an essential element of the charge” was properly dismissed
- “It is an essential element of the crime of resisting arrest that the arrest be authorized and, absent proof that the arresting officer had a warrant or probable cause to arrest defendant for commission of some offense, a conviction cannot stand_”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by People v. Inserra, 2 Misc. 3d 21 (2003)
Finally, the People’s contention that this court’s earlier decisions should not be followed due to their purported reliance on People v Alejandro (70 NY2d 133 [1987]) is inapposite, as the Court of Appeals itself reaffirmed, in Casey, Alejandro’s holding (70 NY2d at 135-136) that complete absence of pleading of an element of a crime, as occurred here, is a jurisdictional defect (Casey, 95 NY2d at 362).
The opinion
Bellacosa, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result and in the reasoning of the opinion by Judge Hancock. I am also of the view that this result is a small price to pay for upholding the logic of the statutory framework. It supplies elemental fairness to defendants prosecuted for less serious crimes, but crimes nevertheless, which affect ordinary people and produce lifelong criminal records.
In coming to this conclusion, I am not unmindful either of the practicalities encountered in prosecuting the relatively greater numbers of these relatively less serious crimes. Rather, that is all the more reason for caution and special protections so that such prosecutions do not become routinized or treated by anyone as insignificant or unimportant.
Finally, there are balancing remedies more readily available to the State than to the hapless defendants when the State fails in its threshold procedural burden. The State can easily and promptly amend or supersede and pursue a proper prosecution on a jurisdictionally valid accusatory instrument (CPL 100.45 [2], [3]; 100.50 [1]).
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Bellacosa concur with Judge Hancock, Jr; Judge Bellacosa concurs in a separate opinion in which Chief Judge Wachtler and Judge Kaye also concur.
Order affirmed.