## Facts

- A Nassau County District Court issued a temporary order of protection against John Casey on August 15, 1996, in connection with a pending harassment charge.
- On December 2, 1996, the complainant reported that Casey violated the order of protection.
- A detective verified the order’s existence through police records and reviewed a certified copy shown by the complainant.
- The detective took a signed supporting deposition from the complainant and asked Casey to contact police headquarters.
- Casey called, confirmed he was the person served with the order, and arranged to surrender a few days later.
- Upon surrender, Casey received Miranda warnings and gave oral and written statements implying he committed acts that violated the order.
- A jury convicted Casey of, among other offenses, criminal contempt in the second degree for violating the order; the trial court denied suppression and rejected challenges to the accusatory instrument.

## Issues

1. Whether posttrial challenges to the factual sufficiency of a misdemeanor information are preserved absent a pretrial motion to dismiss, and what defects qualify as nonwaivable “jurisdictional” defects.
2. Whether an information charging second-degree criminal contempt is jurisdictionally defective because it did not attach the order of protection, allegedly relied on hearsay, or allegedly failed to show the order was in effect on the violation date.
3. Whether Casey’s uncounseled statements should have been suppressed because he was represented by counsel in a separate, pending harassment case involving the same complainant.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Term’s order upholding the criminal contempt conviction.
- The court held Casey’s factual-sufficiency challenges to the information were unpreserved because they were not raised by pretrial motion to dismiss.
- The court held the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally sufficient because it alleged every element of second-degree criminal contempt and Casey’s commission of it.
- The court upheld the denial of suppression, concluding the pending harassment case did not bar questioning on the later contempt offense as a “closely related” matter.

## Legal Principles

- Not every failure to satisfy statutory pleading requirements for a misdemeanor information is a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect; many deficiencies in factual detail are waivable and must be raised pretrial.
- A true jurisdictional defect exists where the accusatory instrument fails to allege an element of the offense; such a defect may be raised for the first time on appeal.
- Accusatory instruments are read “fairly” and not in an overly restrictive or technical manner; allegations are sufficient if they provide notice to prepare a defense and are detailed enough to protect against double jeopardy.
- Failure to attach an order of protection does not, by itself, render an information jurisdictionally defective if the instrument otherwise alleges the order’s existence, issuance, service, and the defendant’s knowing violation.
- Hearsay-based objections to the instrument’s conversion or to nonhearsay requirements are forfeited if not timely raised before trial.
- Representation by counsel in a separate pending case does not automatically preclude police-initiated questioning on a different, later incident; the bar applies only where the matters are so closely related that questioning would circumvent the right to counsel.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the contempt conviction, holding that posttrial attacks on an information’s factual specificity are generally forfeited absent a pretrial motion and that the charging instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it alleged all elements of the offense. The court also held that Casey’s statements were admissible because his representation in a separate harassment case did not bar interrogation concerning a later, distinct contempt incident.


People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354 (N.Y. 2000)