with verified answers
Criminal Court Subject Matter
Jurisdiction - correct answer ✔✔ The Criminal Procedure Law divides New York courts into two
categories: superior courts (which include Supreme Court and County Court) and local criminal
courts (which include city courts, town courts, district courts and the New York City Criminal
Court). Violations and misdemeanors are generally tried in local criminal courts and felonies are
tried in County Court or Supreme Court. A felony may be initiated by the filing of an information
or complaint in a local criminal court. However, in order try a defendant for a felony, it must
ultimately be prosecuted by an indictment filed by the grand jury or a defendant's consent to
waive indictment and proceed by a superior court information (see NY Const art I, § 6).
Supreme Court: NY Const art VI, § 7; CPL 10.20, 10.30; People v Correa, 15 NY3d 213 (2010). -
correct answer ✔✔ The Supreme Court, a court of general jurisdiction, can exercise jurisdiction
over all criminal proceedings. In practice, it exercises criminal jurisdiction only over felonies in
New York City.
County Court: NY Const art VI, § 11 - correct answer ✔✔ County Courts exist only in the Second
Judicial Department outside New York City and Long Island and in the Third and Fourth Judicial
Departments. County Courts have jurisdiction over all criminal matters, but hear primarily
felonies.
New York City Civil Court; New York City Criminal Court: NY Const art VI, § 15 - correct answer
✔✔ The New York City Criminal Court has criminal jurisdiction within the City of New York over
misdemeanors and violations.
District, city, town and village courts: NY Const art VI, §§ 16, 17; Uniform Court Acts § 202 -
correct answer ✔✔ District Courts (established only in Nassau and Suffolk Counties located in
the Second Judicial Department), and city, town and village courts, have criminal jurisdiction
over misdemeanors and violations.
, General Principles: Mental culpability: Culpable mental states: Penal Law § 15.05 - correct
answer ✔✔ A defendant must act intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal
negligence in order to be held criminally liable for a crime. A person acts "intentionally" with
respect to a result or conduct when his or her conscious objective is to cause such result or
engage in such conduct. "Knowingly" requires that a person be "aware" that his or her conduct
is of the nature described by the offense or that a circumstance described by the offense exists.
A person acts "recklessly" with respect to a result when he or she is aware of and consciously
disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur. "Criminal negligence"
requires that a person fail to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain result will
occur.
General Principles: Mental culpability: Mistake of fact or law: Penal Law §15.20 - correct answer
✔✔ A person is generally not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he or she
engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief of fact unless the factual mistake negates the
culpable mental state required for the commission of the offense or the statute defining the
offense expressly provides that a factual mistake constitutes a defense. Additionally, a person is
generally not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he or she engages in the conduct
under the mistaken belief that it does not constitute an offense, unless the mistaken belief is
based upon an official statement of the law.
Defenses related to mental culpability: Mental disease or defect: Penal Law § 40.15 - correct
answer ✔✔ In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that when the
defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct, he or she lacked criminal responsibility by reason
of mental disease or defect. Such lack of criminal responsibility means that at the time of such
conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he or she lacked "substantial capacity to know
or appreciate" either:
• The nature and consequences of such conduct, or
• That such conduct was wrong.
Lacking a substantial capacity to "know or appreciate" is "designed to permit the defendant
possessed of mere surface knowledge or cognition to be excused, and to require that he have
some understanding of the legal and moral import of the conduct involved if he is to be held
criminally responsible" (People v Adams, 26 NY2d 129, 135 [1970]).