Per Curiam
Boyette appealed from a District Court judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon, menacing and harassment. The accusatory instrument charging Boyette alleged that in a period of over seven years he placed the victim in fear of physical injury by verbally abusing her, grabbing and breaking a mirror, among other things, approximately 10 times. The information alleged these offenses were connected and formed a common scheme and plan. Boyette argued the instrument was jurisdictionally defective as it failed to allege the commission of the offense within a time period sufficiently specific to satisfy his due process right to notice of the offense, and provide him an opportunity to prepare a defense. The panel agreed, finding the accusatory instrument alleging menacing and harassment was jurisdictionally insufficient as it was an error of jurisdictional significance to plead an “overinclusive duration of time.” It stated where the instrument charged a time interval so large it was virtually impossible for Boyette to answer the charges or prepare a defense, dismissal was warranted. As such, the panel reversed the district court’s judgment on the harassment and menacing charges, but affirmed the weapons charge.
