People v. Dumas

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: WACHTLER; KAYE
• Citation: People v. Dumas, 506 N.Y.S.2d 319, 68 N.Y.2d 729, 497 N.E.2d 686 (N.Y. 1986)
• Decision Date: 10 July 1986
• 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.

Page 319

506 N.Y.S.2d 319

68 N.Y.2d 729, 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 of Appeals of New York.

Argued May 30, 1986.

Decided July 10, 1986.

Robin J. Nichinsky and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, for appellants.

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (Barbara A. Sheehan and Amyjane Rettew, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

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...