People v. Davis

Citation55 Misc.2d 656,286 N.Y.S.2d 396
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Roger DAVIS, Defendant.
Decision Date26 June 1967
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)

Carl Rubino, New York City, for defendant.

MITCHELL D. SCHWEITZER, Justice.

On September 17, 1965, the defendant was indicted for the felonious possession of a narcotic drug with intent to sell arising solely from his possession of a quantity of marijuana (slightly in excess of one ounce) found on him by a customs agent as he was in the process of going through customs, having just arrived by ship from Southampton, England.

A pre-pleading investigation report was submitted to the court at the request of defendant's counsel and revealed the following: The defendant is a 20-year-old native of New Orleans, Louisiana. He was a graduate of high school with high honors and is about to graduate from Tulane University with an outstanding academic record. He has been accepted for admission at the Tulane University School of Medicine. He readily and forthrightly admitted his guilt, stating that the marijuana had been given to him by an acquaintance in Paris prior to his getting on board the ship and that he accepted it out of pure curiosity but never actually used it. There is not the slightest suggestion by the police or anyone else that the defendant was ever engaged in the trafficking of any drug.

In this factual setting, the defendant pleaded guilty on December 16, 1966 to the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, a misdemeanor, and was placed under the interim supervision of the Probation Department pending the imposition of sentence. At the time of the interposition of such plea, counsel stated that after a period of such interim supervision of this defendant, he intended to request the court to invoke the provision of section 671 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which authorizes a dismissal of an indictment in the furtherance of justice either on the court's own motion or upon the application of the district attorney.

On May 15, 1967, after five months of interim supervision of the defendant, the court was furnished with a supplemental pre-sentence report. It stated that the defendant had been reporting regularly and was making an excellent adjustment in his native community of New Orleans. He succeeded in maintaining his excellent academic standing and was scheduled to graduate in June, 1967. It was the considered opinion of the Probation Department that the instant involvement was an isolated instance and not characteristic of his general behavior pattern. Counsel for defendant on this day formally moved for permission to withdraw the guilty plea and such motion was granted. He then requested the court to dismiss the indictment pursuant to the authority vested in the court by section 671 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel pointed out the defendant's most exemplary moral background, his extraordinarily high academic standing, and his future plans to enter either the field of medicine or a teaching career. In either case, a conviction of this nature, if allowed to stand, might well prove to be an insurmountable impediment in the pursuit of his professional career. Decision on this motion was reserved. The District Attorney has since filed an affidavit in opposition.

Section 671 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states:

'The court may, either of its own motion, or upon the application of the district attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order an action, after indictment, to be dismissed.'

Section 671 is, in part, a statutory enactment of the common law right to nolle prosequi an indictment. This right which formally vested in an attorney general or a district attorney was 'transferred to the court' when 'section 671 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was enacted * * * in 1881.' (McDonald v. Sobel, 272 App.Div. 455, 462, 72 N.Y.S.2d 4, 10 (Second Dept.), aff'd 297 N.Y. 679, 77 N.E.2d 3 (1947).) It is now well settled that the sole discretion to dismiss an indictment in the interest of justice rests with the court. (See People v. Quill, 11 Misc.2d 512, 177 N.Y.S.2d 380 (Sup.Ct., 1958); Silver v. Gassman, 12 Misc.2d 58, 61, 171 N.Y.S.2d 314, 318 (Sup.Ct., 1957), aff'd 6 A.D.2d 694, 174 N.Y.S.2d 277 (Second Dept.1958).)

Perhaps the most significant and enlightening expression of judicial opinion relating to section 671 is contained in People v. Quill, supra, at page 513, 177 N.Y.S.2d at page 381:

'The power to discontinue prosecution of a crime vested by that section (§ 671) in the court has little or nothing to do with the legal or factual merits of the charge. Nor is it concerned with the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Such a dismissal is concerned, as the statute states, solely with principles of justice.'

(People v. Quill, 11 Misc.2d 512, 513, 177 N.Y.S.2d 380, 381 (Sup.Ct., 1958).)

(See also People v. Spolasco, 33 Misc. 530, 531, 68 N.Y.S. 924 (Ct.Gen.Sess.1900) ('the sole question to be considered is * * * 'What is for the best interests of the cause of justice?").)

Viewed in its best light, the administration of criminal justice involves a balancing process. The Legislature of this State has wisely recognized this by enacting section 671. The fundamental factors weigh heavily for dismissal here. Of determinative significance is the fact that no member of the public has suffered in any way because of the defendant's conduct.

Recently, in People...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • People v. Epakchi
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 1 April 2021
    ...or factual merit, has been ‘to allow the letter of the law gracefully and charitably to succumb to the spirit of justice’ ( People v. Davis, 55 Misc.2d 656, 659 )" ( People v. Rickert, 58 N.Y.2d 122, 126, 459 N.Y.S.2d 734, 446 N.E.2d 419 [1983] ).In his commentaries on the Criminal Procedur......
  • State v. Starrish
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 11 December 1975
    ...the court 'to allow the letter of the law gracefully and charitably to succumb to the spirit of justice.' People v. Davis, 55 Misc.2d 656, 659, 286 N.Y.S.2d 396, 400 (1967). The factors which determine whether a particular case presents the kind of 'rare circumstances' in which termination ......
  • People v. Joseph P.
    • United States
    • New York Justice Court
    • 22 October 1980
    ...but rare circumstances to allow the letter of the law gracefully and charitably to succumb to the spirit of justice." People v. Davis, 55 Misc.2d 656, 659, 286 N.Y.S.2d 396. An order for dismissal in the interests of justice has little or nothing to do with the legal or factual merits of th......
  • People v. Bedell
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 23 December 1994
    ...but rare circumstances to allow the letter of the law gracefully and charitably to succumb to the spirit of justice" (People v. Davis, 55 Misc.2d 656, 659, 286 N.Y.S.2d 396, quoted in People v. Insignares, 121 Misc.2d 921, 925, 470 N.Y.S.2d 513, supra ). This is one of those rare As Judges,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

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