2 No. 78
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
John O'Hara,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 78
June 14, 2001
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Steve S. Efron, for appellant.
Monique Ferrell, for respondent.
The League of Women Voters of New York City; New York Civil Liberties
Union, amici curiæ.
_________________________________________________________________
WESLEY, J.:
Defendant John O'Hara, an attorney and frequent candidate for elective
office, was convicted of seven crimes arising from his fraudulent
filing of a false voter registration form and voting in five separate
elections in an election district in which he did not reside. On
appeal, defendant contends that the definition of voting residence
contained in the Election Law is at odds with our recognition that in
today's society, a person can have more than one residence. This case,
however, turned on whether a second residence actually existed, not a
choice between two. The court's charge correctly reflects the state of
New York law and did not, as defendant now contends, direct a verdict
against him.
Defendant has lived in a multi-unit apartment building at 579 61st
Street in Brooklyn since the 1980s. Until 1992, he registered to vote
using the 61st Street address, which was within the 20th Election
District and part of the 51st State Assembly District and the 38th
Council District of the City of New York. Following redistricting in
1991-1992, 579 61st Street was no longer situated within these
districts.
On November 2, 1992, defendant prepared, signed and filed a new voter
registration form specifying that he resided at 553 47th Street. This
address was located within the newly- redrawn borders of the 20th
SNIPPETS:
The People &c., Respondent, v. John O'Hara, Appellant.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Defendant John O'Hara, an attorney and frequent candidate for elective office, was convicted
On appeal, defendant contends that the definition of voting residence contained in the
Until 1992, he registered to vote using the 61st Street address, which was within the 20th
On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial due to an
The second trial ended in a deadlocked jury.
During opening statements of the third trial, defense counsel argued that the only basis for
According to defense counsel, the evidence would establish that, contrary to the People's
According to Munoz and Lozano, when the three men first moved in, nobody else was living in
Defendant presented the testimony of an employee of the Office of Court Administration who
"According to the law a residence is that place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent
"I don't have a problem with that definition of residency being attached to the first
Defense counsel further objected to use of the Election Law's definition of residence in
Thus, those issues are unpreserved (see, People v Cadorette,, 56 NY2d 1007, 1009; People v
New York courts have recognized that in this modern and mobile society, an individual can
As this Court has stated, an individual having two residences may choose one to which she has
Under the statutory definition, residence is the equivalent of domicile.
This was a clear departure from the dual- residence jurisprudence of civil Election Law cases
This testimony, if credited, certainly would have been sufficient to establish residency
|
