People v. Britt
| Decision Date | 15 December 1965 |
| Citation | 265 N.Y.S.2d 368,48 Misc.2d 705 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Colbert J. BRITT, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
William Cahn, Dist. Atty., Nassau County, Mineola, for the People.
Jerome Murray, New York City, for defendant.
The defendant, indicted in two multiple count indictments for crimes including rape and assault, moves for a bill of particulars requiring the District Attorney to furnish the precise dates, time and places that the alleged acts of rape were perpetrated or in the alternative to dismiss the indictments upon the ground that the charges are too vague and indefinite to charge him with any specific crime and thus an unconstitutional deprivation of his right of due process.
A prior order of this Court directed the District Attorney to 'furnish the dates, times and places of the alleged crimes as set forth in the indictment to the extent that same are within the knowledge of the District Attorney.' In compliance with this order the District Attorney on or about October 7, 1965, furnished a bill of particulars describing the places where the alleged acts took place and which stated that the crimes alleged in Indictment No. 20,955 'occurred between July 1, 1964 and August 26, 1964' and that the crimes charged in Indictment No. 20,956 'happened between the first day of September, 1964, and the 31st day of December, 1964'. The District Attorney stated that the exact times and dates of the occurrences were unknown to him. The complaining witness in each case is over fifteen years of age. Have their memories been exhausted fully? We are not told.
In this motion the defendant urges that in order to 'present an adequate defense to the indictments involved, including a defense of alibi * * * he must know when * * *' the alleged crimes occurred. The defendant points out that in one instance he must defend against an alleged act 'of short duration' which occurred sometime over a period of almost 120 days. He urges that this is an impossible burden to meet.
Rape is not a continuing crime and our courts have held that a defendant is entitled to know not only the particular offense for which he is indicted but also the time or the approximate time at which the alleged offense occurred. People v. Wright, 172 Misc. 860, 16 N.Y.S.2d 593. This is particularly true when the crime involved is rape, and there is no question but that the court may require that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dunbar
... ... United States, 273 U.S. 77, 81, 47 S.Ct. 300, 301, 71 L.Ed. 545 (1927); Commonwealth v. Devlin, 460 Pa. 508, 516, 333 A.2d 888, 892 (1975); People v. Britt, 48 Misc.2d 705, 709, ... Page 973 ... 265 N.Y.S.2d 368, 370 (Nassau County Ct.1965). He does not cite support for the proposition ... ...
-
People v. Cobey
... ... Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 599, 412 N.Y.S.2d 110, 384 N.E.2d 656). In order to prepare and conduct his alibi defense adequately, defendant required more specific information concerning the time and place of the alleged criminal acts (see, People v. Britt, 48 Misc.2d 705, 265 N.Y.S.2d 368; see also, People v. Villani, 59 N.Y.2d 781, 783, 464 N.Y.S.2d 726, 451 N.E.2d 473). Therefore, the trial court's denial of the motion for a bill of particulars deprived defendant of his fundamental right to timely and adequate notice of the charges against him ... ...
-
People v. Hiland, 2005 NY Slip Op 51761(U) (NY 10/28/2005)
... ... Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 599). In order to prepare and conduct his alibi defense adequately, defendant required more specific information concerning the time and place of the alleged criminal acts (see, People v. Britt, 48 Misc 2d 705; see also, People v. Villani, 59 NY2d 781, 783). Therefore, the trial court's denial of the motion for a bill of particulars deprived defendant of his fundamental right to timely and adequate notice of the charges against him." ... Id. at 1003 (emphasis added). See ... ...
-
People v. Lupia
... ... The statutory requirement has made it all the more necessary that the defendant be advised with exactitude as to the time and place of the commission of the alleged crime. People v. Wright, 172 Misc. 860, 16 N.Y.S.2d 593; People v. Kamp, 4 Misc.2d 518, 161 N.Y.S.2d 211; People v. Britt, 48 Misc.2d 705, 265 N.Y.S.2d 368. Most [65 Misc.2d 757] of these decisions have concerned themselves with rape cases but the Courts have ruled the same concerning other criminal charges. People v. Wagman, 31 Misc.2d 505, 221 N.Y.S.2d 866 ... The Court directs that the District ... ...