People v. Dargan

Decision Date02 July 1970
Citation313 N.Y.S.2d 712,27 N.Y.2d 100,261 N.E.2d 633
Parties, 261 N.E.2d 633 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David DARGAN, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

William E. Hellerstein and Milton Adler, New York City, for appellant.

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (Michael R. Juviler and Lewis R. Friedman, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted on July 15, 1969 in the Criminal Court of the City of New York after trial before a panel of three Judges without a jury of assault, third degree, and petit larceny and he was sentenced to serve a term of seven months' imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently. As class A misdemeanors, each crime was punishable by a maximum sentence of imprisonment for one year (Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40, § 70.15, subd. 1).

Before the trial commenced the defendant moved for a jury trial and his motion was denied.

In view of Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (decided June 22, 1970), revg. 24 N.Y.2d 207, 299 N.Y.S.2d 424, 247 N.E.2d 260 and Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (decided June 22, 1970), which mandate a jury trial in State courts for any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than six months, we are now called upon to determine whether a person charged with a class A misdemeanor, whose case was reached for trial after Duncan v. Lopisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491, decided May 20, 1968, but before the decision in Baldwin v. New York, Supra, is entitled to a jury trial.

There is ample precedent for holding that the Baldwin case, not any prior case, is the appropriate landmark in determining which cases should be affected by the new rule. The courts, both Federal and State, have often chosen the date of the new decision, not previous cases on which it was based, as the starting date for its applicability (see Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106; Tehan v. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 86 S.Ct. 459, 15 L.Ed.2d 453; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; DeStefano v. Woods, 392 U.S. 631, 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d 1308. See, also, People v. Morhouse, 21 N.Y.2d 66, 77, 286 N.Y.S.2d 657, 665, 233 N.E.2d 705, 711; People v. Kaiser, 21 N.Y.2d 86, 286 N.Y.S.2d 801, 233 N.E.2d 818, affd. 394 U.S. 280, 89 S.Ct. 1044, 22 L.Ed.2d 274). Accordingly, the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Baldwin v. New York, Supra should be applied only to those trials commencing on or after the date of that decision, June 22, 1970.

The application of the District Attorney to permit the Criminal Court of the City of New York to retain jurisdiction to try cases without a jury and to impose sentences not in excess of six months' imprisonment as to defendants charged with class A misdemeanors is denied. Hereafter, the Criminal Court of the City of New York may be authorized by the Appellate Division, First and Second Departments, pursuant to their supervisory powers (Judiciary Law §§ 214, 216, subd. 1), to proceed with a trial before a six-man jury to be selected from jury lists of the Supreme Court in the county in which the charge is pending. Such a rule is necessary by reason of the determination of the Supreme Court of the United States in Baldwin and Williams (supra) despite the absence of State authority to impanel a jury in the New York City Criminal Court. The respective Appellate Divisions must, therefore, provide a temporary solution which will allow that court to function under these decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States until the Legislature convenes and enacts measures to deal with these problems.

The judgment should be affirmed.

FULD, Chief Judge (dissenting).

I fully agree with the court that defen...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • United States ex rel. Buonoraba v. COMMISSIONER OF COR., CITY OF NY
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 11, 1970
    ...399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed. 2d 446 (June 22, 1970). 28 Former N.Y. Penal Law § 600 (McKinney 1944). 29 26 N.Y.2d 100, 313 N.Y.S.2d 712, 261 N.E.2d 633 (July 2, 1970). 30 See Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 256, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969); De Stefano v. Woods, 392 U......
  • Com. v. Bethea
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • October 12, 1971
    ...be accorded a purely prospective application. For this reason, I dissent in Nos. 384 and 390. See People [445 Pa. 182] v. Dargan, 27 N.Y.2d 100, 313 N.Y.S.2d 712, 261 N.E.2d 633 (1970); United States ex rel. Buonoraba v. Commissioner of Corrections, 316 F.Supp. 556 (S.D.N.Y.1970); but see U......
  • D., In re
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • July 2, 1970
    ...... including those dealing with the voluntariness of any statements, are determinable by [27 N.Y.2d 96] the same Judge who presides at the trial (People v. Brown, 24 N.Y.2d 168, 299 N.Y.S.2d 190, 247 N.E.2d 153).         Turning to respondent's argument that he was entitled to the reasonable ......
  • State v. Dostal
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • December 22, 1971
    ...to be applicable 'only to those trials commencing on or after the date of that decision, June 22, 1970.' People v. Dargan (1970), 27 N.Y.2d 100, 313 N.Y.S.2d 712, 261 N.E.2d 633. In Dargan, it was asserted by appellant that the decision in Baldwin (decided June 22, 1970) should be applied r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT