People v. Dumas
| Decision Date | 10 July 1986 |
| Citation | 497 N.E.2d 686,68 N.Y.2d 729,506 N.Y.S.2d 319 |
| Parties | , 497 N.E.2d 686 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert L. DUMAS, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Felix FAUSTO, Also Known as Fausto Felix, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The orders of the Appellate Term should be reversed and the orders of the Criminal Court should be reinstated.
We agree with the Criminal Court that the misdemeanor complaints are facially insufficient.
In the Dumas case the factual portion of the complaint simply states: "Deponent is informed by an undercover police officer of the New York City Police Department, Shield Number 6938, who is known to the deponent, that defendant knowingly and unlawfully sold to informant marijuana to wit: 2 clear plastic bags of marijuana, for a sum of United States currency". The complaint in the Fausto case is similar.
The factual part of a misdemeanor complaint must allege "facts of an evidentiary character" (CPL 100.15[3] ) demonstrating "reasonable cause" to believe the defendant committed the crime charged (CPL 100.40[4][b] ).
In each case the complaint contains a conclusory statement that the defendant sold marihuana, but in neither case is this supported by evidentiary facts showing the basis for the conclusion that the substance sold was actually marihuana. There is, for instance, no allegation that the police officer is an expert in identifying marihuana (cf. People v. Kenny, 30 N.Y.2d 154, 331 N.Y.S.2d 392, 282 N.E.2d 295), nor any allegation that the defendant represented the substance as being marihuana. Neither are any additional facts provided by the supporting depositions in which the undercover police officer merely adopts the statements alleged in the complaints.
We note that this is not a pleading defect. The misdemeanor complaint is designed to provide the court with sufficient facts for the court to determine whether the defendant should be held for further action (People v. Weinberg, 34 N.Y.2d 429, 358 N.Y.S.2d 357, 315 N.E.2d 434). If found to be sufficient on its face, the misdemeanor complaint alone may serve as the basis for issuing an arrest warrant (CPL 120.20[1] ) and the requirement for factual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norton v. Town of Islip
...that the object observed in defendant's possession was a gravity knife” as defined by the statute); People v. Dumas, 68 N.Y.2d 729, 731, 506 N.Y.S.2d 319, 497 N.E.2d 686, 686–87 (N.Y.1986) (noting lack of allegation that police officer was an expert in identifying marijuana or that defendan......
-
People v. Tardif
...reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged" ( CPL 100.40 [4 ] [b]; see People v. Dumas, 68 N.Y.2d 729, 731, 506 N.Y.S.2d 319, 497 N.E.2d 686 [1986] ; People v. Afilal, 26 N.Y.3d 1050, 1052, 22 N.Y.S.3d 405, 43 N.E.3d 762 [2015], revg. 43 Misc.3d 142(A), 201......
-
People v. Thiam
...or weapon, we have held that the conclusory description of the contraband is a jurisdictional defect (see People v. Dumas , 68 N.Y.2d 729, 731, 506 N.Y.S.2d 319, 497 N.E.2d 686 [1986] ; Kalin , 12 N.Y.3d at 229, 878 N.Y.S.2d 653, 906 N.E.2d 381 ). Specifically, the conclusory allegations ar......
-
People v. Stewart
...prerequisite. McKinney's CPL § 100.40, Practice Commentaries, Professor Peter Preiser, (2012), citing , People v. Dumas , 68 N.Y.2d 729, 506 N.Y.S.2d 319, 497 N.E.2d 686 [1986] ; County of Riverside v. McLaughlin , 500 U.S. 44, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1991). However, so long as the ......
-
Policing the police: the role of the courts and the prosecution.
...Brief, supra note 6, at 4 (eighty-four percent of those arrested for non-felonies in 1998 were African-American or Latino). (157.) 497 N.E.2d 686 (N.Y. (158.) N.Y. CRIM. PROC. LAW [section] 100.15(3) (McKinney 2005). (159.) Id. [section] 100.40(4)(b). (160.) Dumas, 497 N.E.2d at 687. (161.)......