People v. Hohmeyer
| Decision Date | 09 June 1987 |
| Citation | 517 N.Y.S.2d 448,510 N.E.2d 317,70 N.Y.2d 41 |
| Parties | , 510 N.E.2d 317 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Ernest HOHMEYER, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
On September 20, 1985, defendant was arrested on the charge of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192). In response to a request by defendant (CPL 100.25), on September 30, 1985, the People served on him and filed with the court a supporting deposition on a form labeled "Supporting Deposition & DWI Bill of Particulars & 710.30 Notice". The form includes spaces to fill in general information about the charge, chemical test information, and two and a half columns of potentially applicable police observations of defendant's behavior before and after the stop, with a box next to each, to be used by the arresting officer in checking those which apply. Thereafter, on December 10, 1985, the People filed with the court and served on defendant a statement of readiness for trial. Both the supporting deposition and the statement of readiness were accepted without objection.
On January 15, 1986, defendant moved for dismissal of the charge on the grounds that the People were not ready for trial within "ninety days of the commencement of criminal action" (CPL 30.30) and that the simplified traffic information was defective (CPL 170.30, 170.35, 100.40) because the supporting deposition "was no more than a check sheet of multiple choice information containing no factual allegations of an evidentiary nature supporting the charge" and, thus, did not meet the requirements of CPL 100.20 and 100.25(2). Town Court agreed with defendant, holding that use of this form of supporting deposition denied defendant "his right to require the officer to express, in his own words, what his observations and conclusions are." Concluding that the supporting deposition was insufficient, Town Court granted what it termed defendant's "motion to suppress" it. Having found the deposition to be a nullity, the court held that it necessarily followed that the People's statement of readiness was also a nullity; because there was no statement of readiness, the court granted the motion to dismiss the criminal action under CPL 30.30. County Court affirmed "for the reasons stated" in the Town Court and the People appeal by leave of a Judge of this court. The People contend that the courts below erred in holding that the preprinted supporting deposition failed to contain allegations of fact required by CPL 100.20 and 100.25(2). We agree.
A supporting deposition must be a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rossi
...... Accordingly, the Legislature has given the defendant an absolute right to obtain a deposition from the arresting officer, setting forth sufficient facts to establish a reasonable cause for the charge, although not necessarily a prima facie case sufficient to go to trial. People v. Hohmeyer, 70 N.Y.2d 41, 43, 517 N.Y.S.2d 448, 510 N.E.2d 317 (supporting deposition must . Page 514. state sufficient facts to establish reasonable cause, but need not state officer's "observations and conclusions"); People v. Origlia, 138 Misc.2d 286, 288, 524 N.Y.S.2d 163. See also: Preiser, Practice ......
-
People v. Crisci
...or offenses charged.” CPL § 100.25(2); See: People v. Key, 45 N.Y.2d 111, 408 N.Y.S.2d 16, 379 N.E.2d 1147 (1978); People v. Hohmeyer, 70 N.Y.2d 41, 517 N.Y.S.2d 448, 510 N.E.2d 317 (1987); People v. Titus, 178 Misc.2d 687, 682 N.Y.S.2d 521 (App. Term 2nd Dept.1998); People v. Chittaranjans......
-
People v. Huhn
...committed the offense or offenses charged.” CPL § 100.25(2); See: People v. Key, 45 N.Y.2d 111, 408 N.Y.S.2d 16 (1978); People v. Hohmeyer, 70 N.Y.2d 41, 517 N.Y.S2d 448 (1987); People v. Titus, 178 Misc.2d 687, 682 N.Y.S.2d 521 (App. Term 2nd Dept.1998); People v. Chittaranjans, 185 Misc.2......
-
People v. Kelly
...or offenses charged." CPL § 100.25(2) ; See : People v. Key , 45 NY2d 111, 408 N.Y.S.2d 16 (1978) ; People v. Hohmeyer , 70 NY2d 41, 517 N.Y.S2d 448 (1987) ; People v. Titus , 178 Misc 2d 687, 682 N.Y.S.2d 521 (App. Term 2nd Dept. 1998) ; People v. Chittaranjans , 185 Misc 2d 871, 714 N.Y.S......