People v. Inness

Citation326 N.Y.S.2d 669,69 Misc.2d 429
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Frank W. INNESS, Defendant.
Decision Date22 November 1971
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)

Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty. of Westchester County, White Plains, William B. Fleming, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for the people.

Edwin Samalin, Yorktown Heights, for defendant.

WOOD, Judge.

Defendant, charged with three counts of Manslaughter in the Second Degree, three counts of Criminally Negligent Homicide and violation of Section 1192(1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, moves for discovery, under CPL 240.20 of the following:

(a) Defendant's testimony before the Grand Jury;

(b) Copies of any written or recorded statements, admissions or confessions made by defendant;

(c) Copies of reports of accident investigation, photographs or any other scientific evidence connected with this case in the possession, custody or control of the People;

(d) For permission to make an independent mechanical examination of the 1971 Dodge automobile involved in the accident;

(e) Blood test results.

The Court will take up these requests in the order listed above.

( a) The People not objecting thereto, a copy of defendant's testimony before the Grand Jury shall be provided him upon his payment of the appropriate stenographic fees.

( b) The People disclaiming the existence of any written or recorded statement of defendant made to a public servant engaged in law enforcement or to a person then acting under his direction in the possession of control of the People, the request therefor must be and is denied.

(c) Discovery of the information sought here presents a rather complex determination. Statutory discovery, pursuant to CPL Article 240 is of recent origin in New York State (L.1970, ch. 996, effective 9/1/71). Prior thereto and solely by virtue of case law the New York rule was quite restrictive (People ex rel. Lemon v. Supreme Court, 1927, 245 N.Y. 24, 33--34, 153 N.E. 84, 86.) 'Through the years, however, trial judges have struggled with discovery questions on an ad hoc basis and, especially of late, have occasionally expressed and effectuated views considerably more liberal than those espoused in the Lemon case, supra (see People v. Matera, 1967, 52 Misc.2d 674, 276 N.Y.S.2d 776, 786--787; People v. Quarles, 1964, 44 Misc.2d 955, 255 N.Y.S.2d 599; People v. D'Andrea, 1960, 20 Misc.2d 1070, 1073, 195 N.Y.S.2d 542, 545)' CPL 240.00: Commission Staff Comment.

Federal Rule 16 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended in 1966, provided the model upon which was founded Article 240 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

CPL 240.10(3), for the purposes of this motion, defines exempt property as '(a) reports, memoranda or other internal documents or work papers made by district attorneys, police officers or other law enforcement agents . . . in connection with the investigation, prosecution . . . of a criminal action.' As is prevalent with generalizations, difficulty arises when applied to specifics.

Defendant claims that at the time of the accident '. . . a host of police officials arrived, including accident investigators, photographers, etc. . . . By the time (defendant's counsel) had been consulted all of the relevant evidence had been cleared away by the District Attorney's office.' In view thereof and 'in the interests of justice' defendant should 'be allowed to examine the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the accident, including photographs, measurements of skid marks, accident investigator's reports, etc. . . .'

The problem is, though, are these exempt properties? As generally defined, one would be inclined to hold them exempt. Yet one is struck by the 'work product' rule, set forth in Moore's Federal Practice, Rule 16, pp. 16--20, 16--21, which 'protects from disclosure a litigant's theories and thought processes contained in internal notes and memoranda relating to the case.' (See generally Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451. cf. Will v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 90, n. 1, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305). There can be no serious dispute as to the need to protect this type of work product. But what harm could possibly result to the People or what prejudice to their case were they directed to turn over for inspection or copies thereof, such physical evidence as is incapable of damage or alteration.

As was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Bennett
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • October 1, 1973
    ......Ahmad, D.C., 53 F.R.D. 186; United States v. Wolfson, D.C., 289 F.Supp. 903. .         Absent constitutional considerations relating to fair trial, the courts of New York must adhere to the legislative restrictions on the scope of pretrial criminal discovery. In People v. Inness, 69 Misc.2d 429, 326 N.Y.S.2d 669, the Court adopted a liberal interpretation of the language of the exempt property definition to afford the defendant pretrial discovery of routine standard accident investigation reports relating the physical facts surrounding[75 Misc.2d 1055] an accident. In ......
  • People v. Simone
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • December 13, 1977
    ...... However, a number of courts have granted discovery of a wide range of official documents, including police arrest, investigative and incident reports (People v. Wright, 74 Misc. 419, 343 N.Y.S.2d 944; People v. Rice, 76 Misc.2d 632, 351 N.Y.S.2d 888; People v. Inness, 69 Misc.2d 429, 326 N.Y.S.2d 669; People v. Sumpter, 75 Misc.2d 55, 347 N.Y.S.2d 670; People v. Harrison, 81 Misc.2d 144, 364 N.Y.S.2d 760). All of these latter cases granted defendant discovery of the usual, "routine police reports," records and forms concerning the defendant's apprehension and ......
  • People v. Dezimm
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • November 22, 1981
    ......Zacchi, 69 Misc.2d 785, 331 N.Y.S.2d 86 (Sup.Ct., New York 6., 1972), it has not been held to require disclosure where the people, as here, have disclaimed the existence of any such recorded statement, People v. Inness, 69 Misc.2d 429, 326 N.Y.S.2d 669; and even if the analogy between C.P.L. § 240.20(1)(a) and F.R.Cr.P. Rule 16(a) warrants interpretation of the New York law in light of the standards applied by the Bryant, supra, court, the Bryant decision requires only preservation of existing recordings, not ......
  • People v. Harrison
    • United States
    • New York Justice Court
    • February 13, 1975
    ...... Such material is non-discoverable as exempt property. (People v. Rice, 76 Misc.2d 632, 351 N.Y.S.2d 888; People v. Wright, 74 Misc.2d 419, 343 N.Y.S.2d 944; People v. Inness, 69 Misc.2d 429, 326 N.Y.S.2d 669.) The production of the former is allowed and the latter is denied.         Defendant further moves for disclosure of numerous other material including: Witnesses statements, notes of memoranda by police officers of witnesses statements, photographs of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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