## Facts

- Police stopped Samuel Jackson’s car for a traffic violation on a public street.
- As the officer approached, the officer smelled marijuana and observed Jackson in the driver’s seat holding a bag of marijuana.
- A search of the vehicle recovered additional bags of marijuana.
- Jackson was charged with several offenses, including fifth-degree criminal possession of marijuana under Penal Law § 221.10(1) (possession in a public place where marijuana is burning or open to public view).
- Jackson pleaded guilty to the § 221.10(1) count in satisfaction of all charges.
- After the plea, Jackson moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument as jurisdictionally defective, arguing it did not adequately allege (i) a “public place” and (ii) that the marijuana was “burning or open to public view.”

## Issues

1. Whether an information charging Penal Law § 221.10(1) is facially sufficient when it alleges the defendant was in a car on a public street holding marijuana and the officer smelled marijuana, without reciting the statutory phrase “burning or open to public view.”
2. Whether the interior of a vehicle stopped on a public street can constitute a “public place” under Penal Law § 221.10(1) and Penal Law § 240.00(1).
3. Whether an asserted failure to plead those elements constitutes a jurisdictional defect that survives a guilty plea.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the information sufficiently alleged the “public place” element because the vehicle was on a public street and the officer could approach and see inside.
- The court held the allegations that the officer smelled marijuana and saw Jackson holding a bag of marijuana were enough to plead that the marijuana was “burning or open to public view,” even without a verbatim statutory recitation.
- Because the information alleged facts establishing every element if true, there was no jurisdictional defect, and the guilty plea foreclosed challenges going to evidentiary proof rather than facial sufficiency.

## Legal Principles

- An information must contain nonhearsay allegations of an evidentiary character that, if true, establish every element of the charged offense and the defendant’s commission of it (CPL §§ 100.15, 100.40).
- A guilty plea does not forfeit a claim that the accusatory instrument fails to allege a crime; a true failure to plead an offense is a jurisdictional defect.
- “Public place” under Penal Law § 240.00(1) focuses on public access or exposure, not public ownership; a vehicle situated on a public street may qualify when the interior is subject to observation from outside.
- Facial sufficiency does not require a talismanic repetition of statutory language if the pleaded facts support the elements, including that marijuana was “burning or open to public view” under Penal Law § 221.10(1).

## Conclusion

The court upheld Jackson’s § 221.10(1) conviction, concluding the information adequately alleged that his possession occurred in a public place and that the marijuana was burning or open to public view; therefore, no jurisdictional defect existed to invalidate the guilty plea.


People v. Jackson, 18 N.Y.3d 738, 967 N.E.2d 1160, 944 N.Y.S.2d 715 (N.Y. 2012)