Charles I. Sterling for appellant.
George M. Fanelli, District Attorney (
Douglas L. McGuire of counsel), for respondent.
of a motor vehicle owned by him * * *
upon a public highway of this state by any person who is not duly licensed". (Emphasis supplied.) In the opinion of this court, the failure to include, in the oral charge, the aforesaid emphasized matter must be held fatal for without the same the charge, as read, did not contain all the essential elements of the crime. It has been repeatedly held that the principal facts must be charged and that no essential element of the crime may be omitted. (
People v. Albow, 140 N.Y. 130, 134;
People v. Grogan, 260 N.Y. 138, 142;
People v. Taylor, 159 Misc. 536.) Thus, in the case at bar, the oral charge failed to include the allegation that the motor vehicle in question had been driven on a public highway of this State and it also failed to include the very essential allegation that the defendant knowingly permitted it to be so driven by an unlicensed person, thereby omitting the requisite element of intent. In this court's opinion no person violates the section in question unless it appears that such person permitted or authorized his motor vehicle to be driven upon a public highway by one whom he knows to be an unlicensed driver. The rule is clear that where, as here, the conviction rests alone on a plea of guilty to a charge which, as above stated, fails to state acts sufficient to constitute a crime, the conviction must be condemned as jurisdictionally defective and a nullity notwithstanding the plea. (
People v. Rosenkrantz, 123 Misc. 335;
People v. Lindner, 133 Misc. 728;
People v. Williams, 135 Misc. 564;
People v. Huyck, 171 Misc. 467.) By his plea of guilty, the defendant did not admit the commission of any crime, and there existed no jurisdiction in the court below to impose sentence. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed, the charge dismissed and the fine remitted. Settle order on notice.