In People v B* (E*) the defendant’s conviction for disorderly conduct was ultimately reversed due to a jurisdictionally defective accusatory instrument. The appellate court found that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary elements of disorderly conduct, particularly the intent or recklessness required to disturb public peace or order.
B was charged with disorderly conduct under Penal Law § 240.20(2) after allegedly playing loud music from a portable device without a permit. The trial court found B guilty following a nonjury trial. However, on appeal, B argued that the accusatory instrument was defective because it did not sufficiently allege that his actions had a public dimension—an essential element of disorderly conduct.
The Appellate Term, Second Department, agreed with Branch’s argument and emphasized that disorderly conduct requires proof that the defendant’s actions were intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly created such a risk. The accusatory instrument merely stated that B played loud music but did not specify how this act disturbed public order. The appellate court noted that the term "unreasonable noise" must be assessed in context, and a conclusory allegation of loudness alone is insufficient to support a disorderly conduct charge.
Because the accusatory instrument failed to establish the necessary elements of the offense, the appellate court ruled that it was jurisdictionally defective. As a result, the judgment of conviction was reversed, the accusatory instrument was dismissed, and any fines or surcharges paid by Branch were remitted.
This case highlights the importance of precise and well-supported allegations in criminal proceedings. It reinforces the principle that charges must be based on clear factual assertions that meet statutory requirements, ensuring that defendants are not convicted based on vague or conclusory claims.
Would you consider that outcome deafening?
# # #
DECISION