You are here: / / THE UNIQUE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE FOR VIOLATION...
, ,

THE UNIQUE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE FOR VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION WERE NOT MET; THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT STIPULATED TO THE ACCURACY OF AN INACCURATE SPECIAL INFORMATION ABOUT A PRIOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CONVICTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department reduced the criminal contempt first degree convictions to criminal contempt second degree for violation of an order of protection, explaining the proof requirements for criminal contempt first were not met and noting that defendant’s stipulation to an inaccurate special information re a predicate offense does not require a different result:

The People were required to establish as an element of the offense of criminal contempt in the first degree that defendant had been previously convicted, within the preceding five years, of the crime of aggravated criminal contempt or criminal contempt in the first or second degree “for violating an order of protection” that “require[d] the . . . defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued” (Penal Law § 215.51 [c]). Thus, this is a situation where the enhancing element of an offense is not merely the existence of a prior conviction, but also the existence of additional facts related to that prior conviction … . The special information filed by the People to assert the existence of the predicate conviction (see CPL 200.60 [1], [2]) alleges only that defendant previously had been convicted of the crime of criminal contempt in the second degree, without specifying whether that previous conviction involved the violation of an order of protection or of any stay-away provision therein … .

The fact that defendant stipulated to the accuracy of the imprecise special information did not relieve the People of their burden of establishing the predicate conviction and related facts as part of their case-in-chief … . People v Barrett, 2020 NY Slip Op 06899, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

You might also like
Evidence of Headaches Did Not Raise an Issue of Fact Re: “Serious Injury”
DEFENDANT WALKED BY POLICE OFFICER HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS REVEALING A GUN, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED.
Suppression Motion Should Have Been Granted—Defendant Arrested Before Police Had Probable Cause
ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE DEEMED HARMLESS, A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO AND POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PROVIDE HEARSAY EVIDENCE AS MOLINEUX “BACKGROUND INFORMATION” (FOURTH DEPT).
Statement Not Tainted by Unwarned Statement Made an Hour Before; Failure to Inform Defendant of Post Release Supervision Did Not Require Reversal
THE PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT WHEN DEFENDANT HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO GO AROUND ANOTHER VEHICLE WAS BASED ON SPECULATION WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
HERE PETITIONERS’ HOUSE WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE AND THE COURT-ORDERED APPRAISAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE LOSS WAS SET ASIDE THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE PETITIONERS; THE PETITIONERS WERE THEN ENTITLED TO SUE TO SEEK FULL RECOVERY UNDER THE INSURANCE POLICY; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED FURTHER APPRAISAL PROCEEDINGS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH ALL JUSTICES AGREED THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS NOT ILLUSORY, THE CONCURRENCE ARGUED THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE ASCERTAINED THE NAMES OF WITNESSES CAPTURED ON A VIDEO (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE DEFENSE EXPERT... ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE ORDER OF PROTECTION BY GOING INSIDE THE...