Lawyers

The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Charlene Morisseau, Respondent. SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE TERM

March 21, 2008

The August 9, 1999, information charged the defendant with yelling and using obscene language while in a public place. The August 13, 1999, information charged the defendant with using obscene language in a public place. The August 30, 1999, information charged the defendant with hitting another person with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm him. A combined trial was held on January 28, 2000, at the Criminal Part of the Town of Minden Justice Court. The Justice Court found the defendant guilty of the offenses charged by decision dated February 3, 2000. Defendant challenged the three judgments.

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the defendant of using obscene language?

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the defendant guilty of the offense of Harassment in the Second Degree?

The court held that no proof was offered by the People that the incident was anything other than a private argument between individual disputants over a parking space.  While proof was submitted that a crowd had gathered once police officers were called to investigate, the mere investigation of the occurrence of a possible offense which causes a public disturbance in and of itself should not be imputed to the conduct of the accused.  Nor is the arrival of police cars at a scene tantamount to a public disturbance. No proof was submitted that the defendant attempted in any way to incite or invoke the spectators or that any spectator aided or abetted the defendant or was encouraged to do so. The record is also devoid of any proof demonstrating a conscious disruptive intent on the defendant’s part or that his actions were of such gravity as to cause a crowd reaction.”

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the defendant guilty of the offense of Harassment in the Second Degree?

This court has reviewed the defendant’s contentions with regard to the harassment charge and finds them to be without merit. Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the defendant’s conviction was based upon adequate, competent evidence legally sufficient to support the defendant’s commission of every element of the offense charged.  Here, the defendant seeks this court to review the trial court’s determination of the credibility of the witnesses who testified at the lower court proceeding. After having the advantage of viewing the witnesses first hand, the trial court’s determination regarding their credibility is entitled to great deference.  Upon review of the record below, this court sees no reason to disturb the lower court’s findings.

Conclusion:

The court reversed defendant’s conviction for disorderly conduct because the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, but affirmed defendant’s conviction for harassment because there was competent evidence to support defendant’s commission of every element of the offense.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Originally published here.

The SRIS Law Group is a law firm with offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts.  The law firm assists clients with criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration, civil litigation, bankruptcy & military law.  The law firm has Virginia offices in Fairfax County, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Loudoun County, Prince William County & Fredericksburg, Virginia.  The Maryland offices are in Montgomery County & Baltimore.  The Massachusetts offices are in Boston & Cambridge.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.