Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that a guilty plea did not forfeit the defendant’s purely legal challenge to the viability of the aggravated-assault charge. Reaffirming People v. Owusu, the court held that the defendant’s teeth and saliva, as body parts or substances that came with him, could not qualify as a dangerous instrument for purposes of aggravating criminal liability, and it dismissed the aggravated-assault count.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a guilty plea forfeited defendant's purely legal challenge that the aggravated-assault count charged no legally cognizable offense.
- Whether a defendant's saliva, like the defendant's teeth or other body parts, may qualify as a dangerous instrument under Penal Law § 10.00 (13).
- Whether the aggravated-assault count should be dismissed and the case remitted for resentencing.
Holdings
- A guilty plea does not forfeit a purely legal claim that the charged conduct cannot constitute the offense alleged because the plea cannot establish a legally viable theory of prosecution.
- A defendant's saliva, like his teeth and other body parts, cannot qualify as a dangerous instrument under Penal Law § 10.00 (13).
- The aggravated-assault conviction must be vacated and the corresponding count of the indictment dismissed because the charged theory based on saliva as a dangerous instrument is legally invalid.
Key quotations
“A defendant can admit facts, but cannot by his or her admission mint an offense for which the law does not already provide.” (407)
“We simply recognize, as we have in numerous other contexts (see Hansen, 95 NY2d at 230-231), that pleas are not properly interposed to preclude appellate review of issues that they are not competent to, or for reasons of public policy should not, conclude.” (408)
“All that is limited is its power to heighten liability solely by reason of corporeal attributes.” (409)
Factual background
Defendant bit a police officer on the finger while the officer attempted to arrest him. The People charged him with aggravated assault upon a police officer or peace officer and identified his teeth in the bill of particulars as the dangerous instruments. Defendant was HIV positive, and County Court ruled that his saliva, allegedly infected with HIV, could qualify as a dangerous instrument because it was a substance capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
Procedural history
A Herkimer County grand jury charged defendant with aggravated assault upon a police officer or peace officer and other offenses. After the People specified in a bill of particulars that defendant's teeth were the dangerous instruments, defense counsel moved to dismiss the aggravated-assault count based on People v. Owusu. County Court instead ruled that defendant's saliva could qualify as a dangerous instrument, and defendant pleaded guilty while expressly reserving appellate rights. The Appellate Division affirmed on plea-forfeiture grounds; the Court of Appeals held that the legal challenge was reviewable, dismissed the aggravated-assault count, and remitted for resentencing.
Remand instructions
Dismiss the count charging aggravated assault upon a police officer or peace officer, vacate the corresponding conviction, and remit the matter to Herkimer County Court for resentencing on the remaining convictions.