According to the underlying court documents -- the "accusatory instrument" -- upon which the conviction was based, Lucas "did intentionally obstruct Police Office Lynch from effecting a lawfull [sic] arrest by physical force in that the defendant did strick [sic] the officer several times and did physically interest with the arrest of another."
Interestingly, upon its review of the record, the Appellate Term, 9th and 10th Judicial Districts, found that there was a "dearth" of facts supporting Lucas's arrest.
But we've looked at the governing statutory sections and can't discern what additional information was required.
According to Penal Law section 195.05, a person is guilty of "obstructing governmental administration," when s/he "intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act ...."
Penal Law section 205.30 provides that a person is guilty of "resisting arrest," when s/he "intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest of himself or another person."
It seems to us like the underlying documents sufficiently captured those elements. But what may have served as a linchpin for the reversal is Officer Lynch's failure or refusal (or that of another individual with personal knowledge of the facts) to swear to the allegations. According to the AT, that omission rendered the case "jurisdctionally defective" and mandated the conviction's reversal.
Try taking a swipe at that!
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: People v. Lucas
---------------------------
*That's Debra Lucas, not my colleague, Lucas A. Ferrara. (He's got other issues.)