People v. Burrows
| Decision Date | 12 July 1976 |
| Citation | 386 N.Y.S.2d 157,53 A.D.2d 1038 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George BURROWS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Williams & Katzman, Lawrence Ktazman, Watertown, for appellant.
John F. Bastian, Watertown, for respondent.
Before MARSH, P.J., and CARDAMONE, MAHONEY, DILLON and GOLDMAN, JJ.
The initial issue in this appeal is whether defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the People were not ready for trial within six months, should have been granted pursuant to CPL 30.30.
The action was commenced on February 5, 1974 by the filing of a felony complaint (CPL 1.20, subd. 17; People v. Sturgis, 38 N.Y.2d 625, 627, 381 N.Y.S.2d 860, 861, 345 N.E.2d 331, 332). The defendant was then in custody for unrelated charges in another jurisdiction and there is no indication of any local criminal court proceeding with respect to the present charges.
Defendant was indicted and arraigned in May, 1974. His present attorney appeared with him at the arraignment and requested to be assigned to represent him. That request was refused and the court assigned another attorney the following day. Sometime thereafter, defendant retained his present attorney. However, neither the court nor the District Attorney knew of that relationship until defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on December 23, 1974. Nor was the assigned attorney aware that he had been replaced until December 30, 1974. The court denied defendant's motion without a hearing 'in view of the unusual circumstances regarding attorneys' and because the defendant had been confined elsewhere since the commencement of the action and had not been jeopardized.
The denial of the motion prevented the defendant from proving, as he must, that the People were not 'ready for trial' within the specified time (CPL 30.30, subd. 1(a); CPL 210.45, subd. 7) and eliminated any need for the District Attorney to show that the delay or some portion of it might be excluded pursuant to the provisions of CPL 30.30 (subd. 4(a) through (g)). There may, for example, be a basis for the exclusion of some period of time pursuant to CPL 30.30 (subd. 4(b)) on the ground that defendant's assigned counsel consented to the delay. In fact, the court adjourned the motion to arrange for his testimony but it was never obtained. Additionally, some portion of the delay may, on a proper showing, be excluded in view of the pendency of other charges and defendant's detention in another jurisdiction (CPL 30.30, subd. 4(a) or (e)) or because it was attributable to the unavailability of judicial resources (see People ex rel. Franklin v. Warden, Brooklyn House of Detention for Men, 31 N.Y.2d 498, 341 N.Y.S.2d 604, 294 N.E.2d 199; People v. Saccoccie, 50 A.D.2d 946, 376 N.Y.S.2d 23).
The present record, however, is not sufficiently complete to permit a proper review. A hearing should be held and a determination made as to whether the People were ready for trial and, if not, any period is excludable from the time in which the People should have been ready (see People v. McLaurin, 38 N.Y.2d 123, 378 N.Y.S.2d 692, 341 N.E.2d 250; People v. Goodman, 44 A.D.2d 862, 355 N.Y.S.2d 217).
Defendant's second contention relates to the denial of his motion to suppress the identification testimony. The display of a single photograph, which depicted only the defendant, to the identifying witnesses, coupled with the detective's suggestive comments to at least two of the witnesses and the exhibition of the photograph to those same two witnesses at the same time, constitutes an impermissible identification procedure (see Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 383, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247; see also Matter of James H., 34 N.Y.2d 814, 359 N.Y.S.2d 48, 316 N.E.2d 334; cf. People v. Rahming, 26 N.Y.2d 411, 416, 311 N.Y.S.2d 292, 296, 259 N.E.2d 727, 730). Once such impropriety is established, the burden is on the People to 'show by clear and convincing evidence that regardless of the improper procedures an in-court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Neely
...in which the Appellate Division could not make appropriate factual findings because the proof was inadequate (see, People v. Burrows, 53 A.D.2d 1038, 386 N.Y.S.2d 157) or the record insufficiently developed (e.g., People v. Lombardi, 18 A.D.2d 177, 239 N.Y.S.2d 161, affd. 13 N.Y.2d 1014, 24......
-
People v. Yanez
...judicial fiat this statutory rule. (Cf. People v. Del Valle, 63 A.D.2d 830, 406 N.Y.S.2d 642 [4th Dept, 1978]; People v. Burrows, 53 A.D.2d 1038, 386 N.Y.S.2d 157 [4th Dept, 1976].) The defendant readily conceded that he wilfully absconded in April 1978 by jumping bail, that he knew he woul......
-
People v. Sanchez-Reyes
...and fair hearing was held, we may make those findings (see, People v. Lewis, 172 A.D.2d 1020, 569 N.Y.S.2d 538; People v. Burrows, 53 A.D.2d 1038, 1039, 386 N.Y.S.2d 157; People v. Denti, 44 A.D.2d 44, 47, 353 N.Y.S.2d A review of the record reveals that defendant failed to establish a pers......
-
People v. Lewis
...full and fair hearing. In such instances, this court may make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law (see, People v. Burrows, 53 A.D.2d 1038, 1039, 386 N.Y.S.2d 157; People v. Denti, 44 A.D.2d 44, 47, 353 N.Y.S.2d Here, it is evident from the record that defendant is not entitled t......