Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jerome PARSONS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment of conviction (Michael Gaffey, J.), rendered March 13, 2019, reversed, on the law, and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.
We are frequently asked to review the facial sufficiency of accusatory instruments charging defendants with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (see Penal Law § 220.03). Typically, we find that such accusatory instruments, be they informations or complaints, are facially sufficient. However, the information before us on defendant's appeal does not contain sufficient non-conclusory allegations establishing the basis for the police officer's belief that the substance seized from defendant was a controlled substance. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of conviction.
The information alleges that, at a specified time on the morning of March 12, 2019, at a specified location in Manhattan, a police officer “recovered synthetic marijuana ․ from the defendant's right jacket pocket.” The information further alleges that the officer “examined the recovered substance and has determined that it does in fact contain synthetic marijuana based on his professional training as a police officer in the identification of synthetic marijuana, his prior experience as a police officer making arrests involving synthetic marijuana, and his observation of the packaging which is characteristic of synthetic marijuana.” The information charged defendant with one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and one count of possession of synthetic phenethylamines and synthetic cannabinoids (see 10 NYCRR 9.2 [renumbered to 9-1.2] ).
The day after his arrest, defendant pleaded guilty to violating the Penal Law § 220.03 count in satisfaction of the accusatory instrument, and sentence was imposed. Defendant did not waive prosecution by information.
Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction resulting from his plea. Highlighting that he was prosecuted on an information (not a complaint), defendant contends that his plea should be vacated and the information dismissed because, among other reasons, the information failed to provide sufficient factual allegations regarding the officer's basis for concluding that the substance seized from defendant was synthetic marijuana. The People contend, in pertinent part, that the allegations in the information sufficiently described, for pleading purposes, the officer's reasons for concluding that the substance seized from defendant was synthetic marijuana.1
There are two types of accusatory instruments a court can use to obtain jurisdiction over a defendant accused of a misdemeanor: an information or a complaint (see People v. Dumay, 23 N.Y.3d 518, 522, 992 N.Y.S.2d 672, 16 N.E.3d 1150 [2014]). A defendant charged with a misdemeanor must be prosecuted by an information unless he or she waives the right to be prosecuted under such an instrument (id.).
A complaint must contain an accusatory section designating the specific offense or offenses with which the defendant is being charged (see CPL 100.15[2]), and a factual section alleging “facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charges” (CPL 100.15[3]) that “provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense [or offenses] charged” (CPL 100.40[b]).
An information must contain the two elements possessed by a valid complaint, and the “[n]on-hearsay allegations of the factual part of the information and/or of any supporting depositions [must] establish, if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof” (CPL 100.40[1][c]). The “prima facie case” standard imposed by CPL 100.40(1)(c) contains two discrete components: that the allegations establish every element of the charged offense or offenses, and that the allegations be “non-hearsay” (see People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 362, 717 N.Y.S.2d 88, 740 N.E.2d 233 [2000]). Critically, the allegations cannot be conclusory (see People v. Jackson, 18 N.Y.3d at 741, 746, 944 N.Y.S.2d 715, 967 N.E.2d 1160; see also People v. Middleton, 35 N.Y.3d 952, 954, 124 N.Y.S.3d 313, 147 N.E.3d 583 [2020]). The prima facie case standard, which is necessary because of “the unique function that an information serves under the [CPL],” demands that the information contain factual allegations establishing a legally sufficient case against the defendant (People v. Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133, 137, 137-139, 517 N.Y.S.2d 927, 511 N.E.2d 71 [1987]; see People v. Jones, 9 N.Y.3d 259, 262, 848 N.Y.S.2d 600, 878 N.E.2d 1016 [2007]). While the allegations in an information need not be of such character that they would withstand a motion to dismiss at trial or establish the defendant's guilt of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt, “an information must satisfy significantly more stringent facial sufficiency requirements than those applicable to a complaint” (People v. Smalls, 26 N.Y.3d 1064, 1066-1067, 23 N.Y.S.3d 134, 44 N.E.3d 209 [2015]). An information that does not satisfy the prima facie case requirement is jurisdictionally defective (People v. Pearson, 78 A.D.3d 445, 445, 914 N.Y.S.2d 2 [1st Dept. 2010]).
Two Court of Appeals decisions—People v. Kalin and People v. Smalls—set forth critical guidance for courts reviewing the facial sufficiency of informations charging defendants with violating Penal Law § 220.03.
In People v. Kalin, 12 N.Y.3d 225, 878 N.Y.S.2d 653, 906 N.E.2d 381 (2009), the information alleged that, on a specified date, at a specified time, at a specified location, the defendant knowingly and unlawfully possessed marijuana in that he was a passenger in a vehicle from which a police officer recovered a marijuana pipe containing a quantity of marijuana from the glove compartment of the vehicle, one plastic zip lock bag containing a quantity of marijuana, and nine plastic bags containing a quantity of heroin from the center console of the vehicle (17 Misc. 3d 131[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip. Op. 51998[U], 2007 WL 3012961, *1 [App. Term., 2d Dept., 2d & 11th Jud. Dists. 2007]). The officer further alleged in the information that his conclusion that the substances recovered were heroin and marijuana was “based upon his experience as a police officer as well as training in the identification and packaging of controlled substances and mari[j]uana” (id.).
The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the defendant's conviction of violating Penal Law § 220.03 emanating from his guilty plea, finding that the information was jurisdictionally defective because it failed to satisfy the prima facie case requirement (see 12 N.Y.3d at 228, 878 N.Y.S.2d 653, 906 N.E.2d 381).
The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Term, and reinstated the judgment of conviction. The Court of Appeals observed that “the factual allegations [in an information] must establish the basis of the arresting officer's belief that the substance seized was an illegal drug—for example, an officer may allege that the accused made a statement identifying the drug” (id. at 229, 878 N.Y.S.2d 653, 906 N.E.2d 381). Notably, the Court found that “the assertions [in the information] were enough to inform defendant that the substances seized were heroin and marijuana—the officer had been trained to identify those drugs and their packaging, he had experience with narcotics as a law enforcement officer and his observations of the substances, along with the presence of drug paraphernalia, supplied the basis upon which he drew the conclusion that he had discovered heroin and marijuana” (id. at 231, 878 N.Y.S.2d 653, 906 N.E.2d 381).
While eschewing any mandatory catechism, the Court found that an information charging a defendant with violating Penal Law § 220.03 is sufficient if it, among other things, states the officer's familiarity with and training regarding the identification of the drug, and provides some information as to why the officer concluded that the substance was a particular type of illegal drug (id. at 231-232, 878 N.Y.S.2d 653, 906 N.E.2d 381).
In Smalls, the information charging the defendant with violating Penal Law § 220.03 alleged, among other things, that the defendant possessed a glass pipe containing a tar-like substance that, based on the officer's “training in the recognition of controlled substances and their packaging, ․ [he] believed to be crack-cocaine residue” (116 A.D.3d 474, 474, 982 N.Y.S.2d 886 [2014]). The defendant pleaded guilty to violating Penal Law § 220.03.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division, First Department, that rejected defendant's facial-sufficiency challenge to the information. The Court of Appeals concluded that “the information was facially sufficient because it contained adequate allegations that the officer had the requisite training and experience to recognize the substance in defendant's possession as a controlled substance and that the officer reached his conclusion about the nature of the substance based on its appearance and placement within a favored apparatus of drug users, a glass pipe” (26 N.Y.3d at 1067, 23 N.Y.S.3d 134, 44 N.E.3d 209). The Smalls Court observed that “an information's description of the characteristics of a substance combined with its account of an officer's training in identifying such substances, the packaging of such substance and the presence of drug paraphernalia, can support the inference that the officer properly recognized the substance as a controlled substance” (id.)
Since Kalin was decided, we have had occasion to pass on the sufficiency of numerous accusatory instruments charging defendants with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. Few of those challenges have been successful (see People v. Thiam, 59 Misc. 3d 126[A], 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 50339[U], 2018 WL 1371548 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2018], affd 34 N.Y.3d 1040, 115 N.Y.S.3d 745, 139 N.E.3d 366 [2019]; People v. Rosario, 45 Misc. 3d 127[A], 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 51482[U], 2014 WL 5148913 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2014]); the overwhelming majority have failed.
With respect to informations, our case law in this area has a common thread: an information sufficiently demonstrates that the officer knew the seized substance was a controlled substance when the instrument (1) alleges that the officer had drug-identification training and experience, and (2) contains non-conclusory allegations establishing the presence of at least one other indicia of criminality, e.g. a physical description of the controlled substance, a description of the substance's packaging, the presence of a drug-related odor, the recovery of drug paraphernalia, an admission by the defendant (see e.g. People v. Cox, 69 Misc. 3d 131[A], 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 51189[U], 2020 WL 6052367 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2020]; People v. Cruz, 69 Misc. 3d 131[A], 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 51185[U], 2020 WL 6051952 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2020]; People v. Feliciano, 57 Misc. 3d 129[A], 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 51172[U], 2017 WL 4158815 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1019, 70 N.Y.S.3d 451, 93 N.E.3d 1215 [2017]).
Most of our case law in the context of complaints is to similar effect (see e.g People v. Miller, 65 Misc. 3d 159[A], 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 52006[U], 2019 WL 6893032 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1161, 120 N.Y.S.3d 272, 142 N.E.3d 1174 [2020]; People v. Owens, 58 Misc. 3d 145[A], 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 50012[U], 2018 WL 328269 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 986, 77 N.Y.S.3d 663, 102 N.E.3d 440 [2018]; People v. Rodriguez, 54 Misc. 3d 12 [A], 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 51826[U], 2016 WL 7478803, lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 952, 54 N.Y.S.3d 382, 76 N.E.3d 1085 [2017]).
In only three instances post-Kalin have we rejected a facial sufficiency challenge to an accusatory instrument charging a defendant with violating Penal Law § 220.03 that contained allegations that the officer had drug-identification training and experience, but did not contain non-conclusory allegations suggesting the presence of at least one other indicia of criminality. In all three instances, the accusatory instrument was a complaint (see People v. Battle, 62 Misc. 3d 151[A], 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 50296[U], 2019 WL 1179252 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1028, 126 N.E.3d 179 [2019]; People v. Powers, 61 Misc. 3d 131[A], 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 51432[U], 2018 WL 4957765 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1208, 99 N.Y.S.3d 203, 122 N.E.3d 1116 [2019]; People v. Quinones, 54 Misc. 3d 133[A], 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 50054[U], 2017 WL 177857 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 951, 54 N.Y.S.3d 382, 76 N.E.3d 1085 [2017]).2
Against this backdrop, affording the information before us a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading, and drawing the fair implications from the factual allegations therein (see People v. Smalls, 26 N.Y.3d at 1066-1067, 23 N.Y.S.3d 134, 44 N.E.3d 209), we conclude that the information does not contain sufficient allegations establishing the basis for the officer's belief that the substance seized from defendant was a controlled substance.
The information states that the officer recovered synthetic marijuana from defendant's right jacket pocket, and the officer “examined the recovered substance and ․ determined that it does in fact contain synthetic marijuana based on his professional training as a police officer in the identification of synthetic marijuana, his prior experience as a police officer making arrests involving synthetic marijuana, and his observation of the packaging which is characteristic of synthetic marijuana.” While the information alleges that the officer had training and experience in identifying synthetic marijuana, it contains no non-conclusory factual allegations suggesting the presence of at least one other indicia of criminality. The conclusory allegation that the officer observed the packaging of the substance seized from defendant is insufficient to support the reasonable inference that the officer properly recognized the substance as synthetic marijuana. There is simply no allegation regarding the nature of the packaging, and no reasonable inference can be drawn from the limited allegations as to the nature of the packaging. Unlike all of the informations we have found to pass muster under Kalin and Smalls, the information before us does not contain any non-conclusory factual allegations indicating the presence of at least one other indicia of criminality.3
Because the information before us is jurisdictionally defective, we reverse the judgment of conviction. Moreover, because the additional offense with which defendant was charged (possession of synthetic phenethylamines and synthetic cannabinoids under 10 NYCRR 9.2 [renumbered to 9-1.2] ) suffers from the same pleading infirmity as the possession-of-a-controlled-substance charge, and, in any event, no penological purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the trial court for further proceedings (see generally People v. Burwell, 53 N.Y.2d 849, 440 N.Y.S.2d 177, 422 N.E.2d 822 [1981]), we dismiss the accusatory instrument.
FOOTNOTES
1. Defendant's jurisdictional challenge survived his guilty plea (see People v. Jackson, 18 N.Y.3d 738, 741, 944 N.Y.S.2d 715, 967 N.E.2d 1160 [2012]), and the People do not suggest otherwise.
2. While the decisions in Battle, Powers and Owens do not identify whether the accusatory instrument was an information or a complaint, the court's records disclose the pertinent accusatory instrument in each case.
3. Notably, the Court in Smalls found that the information allegations were “minimally sufficient to plead a valid charge of seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance” (26 N.Y.3d at 1065, 23 N.Y.S.3d 134, 44 N.E.3d 209). The allegations in the information before us are inferior in quantity and quality to the allegations in that “minimally sufficient” information.
Higgitt, J.
Edmead. P.J., and Cooper, J. concur
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 570207 /19
Decided: October 16, 2020
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)