## Facts

- Wayne Davis was charged in New York City Criminal Court with violating a New York City Parks and Recreation Department rule that barred remaining in a city park after the posted closing time.
- The charged violation was treated as a class B misdemeanor.
- New York Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) § 350.20 permits certain class B misdemeanors to be tried without a jury by a Judicial Hearing Officer (JHO), rather than a criminal-court judge, if both parties consent.
- Before trial, Davis signed a written form consenting to adjudication by a JHO.
- At the nonjury trial, a police officer testified that Davis was present in a city park after closing hours.
- The JHO found Davis guilty based on the evidence presented.
- The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction.
- Davis obtained review in the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that CPL § 350.20’s authorization of JHO trials in class B misdemeanors violated the New York Constitution.

## Issues

1. Whether CPL § 350.20, which authorizes a JHO to conduct a nonjury misdemeanor trial and render a verdict in a class B misdemeanor case upon the parties’ consent, violates the New York Constitution’s allocation of judicial power and requirements for criminal adjudication.
2. Whether Davis’s written consent to a JHO trial permitted the JHO to decide his case consistent with constitutional limits and fair-trial requirements.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held that using JHOs to try and decide class B misdemeanor cases under CPL § 350.20, when the defendant consents and the JHO acts within the court system’s supervision and control, does not violate the New York Constitution.
- The court rejected Davis’s claim that only sitting criminal-court judges may constitutionally conduct such trials, reasoning that JHOs function as court officers within the judiciary rather than as a separate, unauthorized tribunal.
- The court treated Davis’s written consent as an effective waiver of having the nonjury misdemeanor trial conducted by a criminal-court judge.

## Legal Principles

- The Legislature may authorize court-supervised adjunct judicial officers to conduct limited categories of criminal proceedings, so long as the arrangement remains within the judicial branch and the courts retain supervisory authority.
- A Judicial Hearing Officer, typically a retired judge designated to serve in that role, may perform adjudicative tasks assigned by statute and court designation without creating a new “court” outside the Constitution’s structure.
- In misdemeanor cases eligible under CPL § 350.20, a defendant may waive adjudication by a criminal-court judge and consent to a nonjury trial before a JHO, provided the consent is informed and voluntary.
- A constitutional challenge to a JHO-conducted trial generally fails where the proceeding remains part of the criminal court’s process, ordinary procedural protections apply, and the defendant receives a fair adversary hearing.

## Conclusion

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed Wayne Davis’s class B misdemeanor conviction for being in a city park after closing, holding that CPL § 350.20 constitutionally permits a Judicial Hearing Officer to conduct and decide such nonjury trials when the defendant consents and the JHO operates under the courts’ supervision and authority.


People v. Davis, 912 N.E.2d 1044 (2009)