People v. Goetz
| Decision Date | 19 February 1974 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Theodore GOETZ, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
W. Wendell Heilman, Poughkeepsie, for defendant.
Albert M. Rosenblatt, Dist. Atty. (Jennifer L. Van Tuyl, Poughkeepsie, of counsel), for plaintiff.
The defendant Theodore Goetz has been indicted for the commission of the crime of Criminally Selling a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree, a Class C Felony, in violation of the Penal Law § 220.35, and he now moves by his attorney's affidavit to have furnished to him, his attorney, or a chemist employed by him, (1) a detailed report setting forth the tests and findings of the people's chemist of the narcotic drug alleged in the indictment, and (2) a sample of such drug allegedly in the defendant's possession to enable his chemist to determine what drug was present, and (3) in the event that neither the district attorney, his chemist, or any law enforcement agency is or has been in possession of any substance taken from the defendant and alleged to have been cocaine that the indictment then be dismissed.
The district attorney responds to the effect that the people have no scientific reports in their possession, but will provide such reports which may come into their possession in the future, and ask that the motion be denied without prejudice to a renewal at the time of trial under circumstances where the chain of evidence will not be interfered with.
The indictment is a so-called long form one which charges that
The said defendant in the Town of Poughkeepsie, County of Dutchess and State of New York, on or about the 8th day of April, 1973, knowingly and unlawfully offered to sell a quantity of cocaine to another person.
While the defendant seeks scientific reports of the alleged cocaine and samples for testing, his principal contention is that his physical possession of the cocaine, thus proving his capability to transfer it to another person, and its chemical analysis establishing that the substance was cocaine are essential elements of the crime, in the absence of which the indictment must be dismissed.
This Court has heretofore held (People v. Mack Ray Johnson, 68 Misc.2d 708, 327 N.Y.S.2d 690) that the unlimited disclosure provided by CPL § 240.20, subd. 2, requires in a case involving dangerous drugs, where the property containing the alleged drug has been seized by the police, examined and analyzed scientifically, and thus the substance of the drug itself is naturally the basis of the charge, that the people should furnish to the defendant, or his attorney, all reports and documents, or copies thereof, concerning any scientific tests and experiments made on such property seized, and in view of the people's affidavit the Court assumes that the people do not in fact have any reports and documents concerning scientific tests and experiments made in connection with the case.
Notwithstanding such assumption, however, it is ordered that even though no reports containing scientific tests and experiments are presently in the possession of the people, if hereafter at any time in the future any reports and documents concerning scientific tests and experiments made in connection with the case do come within the 'possession, custody or control of the district attorney, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence should become known' to him to exist, then the same, or copies thereof, shall be forthwith supplied to the defendant. CPL § 240.40.
In conjunction with this motion, the defendant brought another motion to have the Court inspect the grand jury minutes, and to dismiss the indictment upon the ground that the evidence before the grand jury was not legally sufficient to support the offense charged (CPL § 210.30).
After granting the motion to inspect, the Court examined the minutes which revealed that the only exhibit received in evidence was a tape recorded conversation between the defendant and another person in which the defendant offered to sell him a gram of cocaine for fifty-five dollars.
Upon this exhibit plus the testimony of the other person that he followed the defendant's instructions to his apartment, that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Green
...328 (Sup.Ct., N.Y. County, 1974); People v. Rice, 76 Misc.2d 632, 351 N.Y.S.2d 888 (County Ct., Suffolk County, 1974); People v. Goetz, 77 Misc.2d 319, 352 N.Y.S.2d 829 (County Ct., Dutchess County, 1974); People v. Norman, 76 Misc.2d 644, 350 N.Y.S.2d 52 (Sup.Ct., N.Y. County, 1973); Peopl......
-
Boyd v. LeFevre
...A.D.2d 382, 343 N.Y.S.2d 474 (First Dept. 1973), aff'd mem., 34 N.Y.2d 689, 356 N.Y. S.2d 295, 312 N.E.2d 478 (1974); People v. Goetz, 77 Misc.2d 319, 352 N.Y.S.2d 829 (Dutchess County Court, 1974). Finally, the proofs and charge to the jury clearly demonstrated the offenses for which defen......
-
People v. Davis
...may be found to have unequivocally made and carried out. Interestingly, the Jones Court also approvingly cites People v. Goetz, 77 Misc.2d 319, 322, 352 N.Y.S.2d 829, 833, in which a naked offer and payment was held to satisfy the sale Regrettably, the sale cases involving offers without de......
-
U.S. ex rel. Daneff v. Henderson
...(Aldrich, J.), but not so broadly as to permit the defense to obtain pretrial scientific analysis of a seized drug in People v. Goetz, 352 N.Y.S.2d 829, 832-833 (Dutchess Cty.Ct.1974) (Aldrich, J.). The reasoning of Goetz appears open to question in an appropriate case, however, see United ......