## Facts

- Timothy Wood’s ex-wife obtained two orders of protection in 1996: one from Rochester City Court under CPL 530.12 and another from Monroe County Family Court under Family Court Act article 8.
- Both orders directed Wood to have “no contact whatsoever” with his ex-wife.
- In the early morning of December 25, 1996, Wood’s ex-wife received 11 “prank” phone calls where the caller hung up; five calls were traced to Wood’s residence.
- The ex-wife initiated a contempt proceeding in Family Court alleging violation of the Family Court order of protection.
- After trial, Family Court found Wood guilty of willfully violating the Family Court order and sentenced him to a definite six-month jail term.
- After the Family Court contempt adjudication, Wood was indicted for, among other charges, five counts of first-degree criminal contempt based on the same five traceable phone calls, premised on violation of the City Court order of protection.
- Wood moved to dismiss the criminal contempt counts on double jeopardy grounds; the trial court denied the motion and Wood was convicted after a jury trial.
- The Appellate Division reversed the first-degree criminal contempt convictions and dismissed those counts, concluding that the same phone calls violated both orders and had already been punished in Family Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a Family Court contempt adjudication imposing a definite jail term for a willful order-of-protection violation constitutes a prior “criminal” punishment for double jeopardy purposes.
2. Whether double jeopardy bars a subsequent prosecution for first-degree criminal contempt based on the same phone-call conduct, even though the later charges alleged violation of a different order of protection issued by a different court.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order dismissing the five counts of first-degree criminal contempt.
- The Court held that the Family Court contempt disposition was punitive and thus triggered double jeopardy protections.
- The Court held that the subsequent first-degree criminal contempt prosecution sought an additional punishment for the same underlying conduct (the same phone calls), and was therefore barred.

## Legal Principles

- Double jeopardy prohibits successive prosecutions or punishments for the same offense when the earlier proceeding imposed a criminal (punitive) sanction.
- A contempt adjudication is treated as criminal for double jeopardy purposes when it imposes a definite punitive jail term for a willful violation, rather than a sanction aimed at coercing compliance.
- For double jeopardy analysis, courts focus on whether the later prosecution is based on the same conduct previously punished; the existence of separate but simultaneously violated orders of protection does not, by itself, permit a second punishment for the same acts.
- The State may not avoid double jeopardy limits by characterizing the later prosecution as involving a different order of protection where the operative conduct and punishment overlap.

## Conclusion

Because Family Court had already imposed a punitive six-month contempt sentence for Wood’s willful order-of-protection violation arising from the same phone calls, the Double Jeopardy Clause and New York’s statutory protections barred a later prosecution for first-degree criminal contempt based on those calls, even though the later counts relied on a different order of protection.


People v. Wood, 95 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. 2000)